Court considers whether a general ingress and egress easement was granted with respect to the entirety of the subject property in a 1924 deed or, instead, a "right for ingress and egress" purely incidental to a sewer easement was granted.
Easement language reads in pertinent part: "Part of first par hereby grants to party of second part his heirs or assigns an easement to lay, maintain and operate a sewer together with the right of ingress and egress on and over and through the following described lands, to-wit: [land description which encompasses the entire subject property]." (emphasis added)
M-C-M Properties, LLC appeals the circuit court's interpretation of a deed that grants Paul Hinshaw a sewer easement “together with the right of ingress and egress” over M-C-M's property. M-C-M contends the circuit court incorrectly interpreted the deed as establishing a right of general ingress and egress over M-C-M's entire property. Instead, M-C-M argues the language of the deed creates only limited rights of ingress and egress related to the primary sewer easement.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Division One holds:
The unambiguous language of the deed indicates the intent to convey two related easements. The deed established a primary sewer easement and a secondary easement for ingress and egress that is limited in its scope and purpose to servicing the primary sewer easement. Thus, the circuit court erred in concluding that the ingress and egress easement permitted general access over M-C-M's property. Further, because the secondary easement's location is spatially limited to the location of the primary easement, the circuit court erred in failing to fix the location of the primary and secondary easements. The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings to specify the location of the easements.