Under Pennsylvania law, "[t]he fee in land may be in one person and the exclusive right to use it as a right of way may be in another, but to accomplish that result the deed creating the right of way must specifically so covenant." Fedorko Props., Inc. v. C.F. Zurn Assocs., 720 A.2d 147, 149 (Pa.Super. 1998) (emphasis added). Absent an express provision in a grant or reservation, an easement is not an exclusive interest in the burdened land.
"Therefore, use of an easement by both landowners must be permitted in accordance with their individual interests." Id. See also Fedorko Properties, Inc. v. C.F. Zurn Assocs., 720 A.2d 147 (Pa.Super.Ct. 1998) (the mere use of the term "exclusive easement" in an easement conveyance did not "grant an easement exclusive of the servient estate"). Nothing in the deeds conveying lots 1 and 2 suggests the Conzelmans' easement was granted or reserved exclusively for them.
Even if the deed mentioned exclusivity, "Pennsylvania law does not establish that the use of the term' exclusive easement' is sufficient as a matter of law to grant an easement which excludes the servient estate[.]" Fedorko Properties,Inc. v. C.F. Zurn & Associates, 720 A.2d 147, 149 (Pa.Super. 1998). Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the court erred in finding an ambiguity.
‘Therefore, use of an easement by both landowners must be permitted in accordance with their individual interests.’ Id.See also Fedorko Properties, Inc. v. C.F. Zurn & Assocs., 720 A.2d 147 (Pa.Super.1998) (the mere use of the term ‘exclusive easement’ in an easement conveyance did not ‘grant an easement exclusive of the servient estate’). Nothing in the deeds conveying lots 1 and 2 suggests the Conzelmans' easement was granted or reserved exclusively for them.”
'Therefore, use of an easement by both landowners must be permitted in accordance with their individual interests.' Id. See also Fedorko Properties, Inc. v. C.F. Zurn & Assocs., 720 A.2d 147 (Pa. Super. 1998) (the mere use of the term 'exclusive easement' in an easement conveyance did not 'grant an easement exclusive of the servient estate'). Nothing in the deeds conveying lots 1 and 2 suggests the Conzelmans' easement was granted or reserved exclusively for them."
¶ 8 When reviewing an express easement, the language of the agreement, unless ambiguous, controls. See Fedorko Properties, Inc. v. C.F. Zurn Associates, 720 A.2d 147, 149 (Pa.Super. 1998). The terms of the instrument conveying the interest are interpreted by applying general principles of contract law.
`Therefore, use of an easement by both [the dominant and the servient] landowners must be permitted in accordance with their individual interests.' Id. See also Fedorko Properties, Inc. v. C.F. Zurn Assocs., 720 A.2d 147 (Pa.Super. 1998) (the mere use of the term `exclusive easement' in an easement conveyance did not `grant an easement exclusive of the servient estate'). Nothing in the deeds . . . suggests the Conzelmans' easement was granted or reserved exclusively for them."
While the "granting of a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy," our review is narrow. Fedorko Properties, Inc. v. C.F. Zurn Assoc., 720 A.2d 147, 148 (Pa.Super. 1998) (citations omitted). When reviewing the grant of a preliminary injunction, "`we do not inquire into the merits of the controversy, but only examine the record to determine if there were any apparently reasonable grounds for the action of the court below.'"