Fedorko Properties, Inc. v. C.F. Zurn & Associates

8 Citing cases

  1. Ephrata Sc. Dist. v. County of Lancaster

    886 A.2d 1169 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2005)   Cited 6 times

    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.

  2. Blalock v. Conzelman

    751 So. 2d 2 (Ala. 1999)   Cited 25 times
    Rejecting argument by easement holders that twenty-four years of pruning trees on a right-of-way easement changed the express easement for a right-of-way to include a right to the trees

    "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.

  3. Esposito v. The Ass'n of Prop. Owners of Hideout

    2257 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 15, 2024)

    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.

  4. Brantley v. Meeks

    142 So. 3d 567 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013)

    ‘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.”

  5. Brantley v. Meeks

    2110585 (Ala. Civ. App. Sep. 14, 2012)

    '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."

  6. Baney v. Eoute

    2001 Pa. Super. 260 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001)   Cited 41 times
    Stating that, "[t]he terms of the instrument conveying the [easement] interest are interpreted by applying general principles of contract law."

    ¶ 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.

  7. Price v. McNeil

    771 So. 2d 1054 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000)   Cited 3 times

    `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."

  8. A.M. Skier Agency, Inc. v. Gold

    2000 Pa. Super. 53 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000)   Cited 26 times
    Granting injunctive relief to former employer where former employee took confidential customer list to new employer

    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.'"