Whipple v. Hatcher, 283 Ga. 309, 310, 658 S.E.2d 585 (2008). See also Sadler v. First Natl. Bank of Baldwin County, 267 Ga. 122, 123(2), 475 S.E.2d 643 (1996). Stated otherwise,

(Citations omitted.) Sadler v. First Nat. Bank c., 267 Ga. 122 (1) ( 475 S.E.2d 643) (1996).Northpark Assoc. No. 2, Ltd. v. Homart Dev. Co., 262 Ga. 138, 139 (1) ( 414 S.E.2d 214) (1992).

r of an easement has an interest in "realty" but "is not the owner or occupant of the estate over which the right extends"); Daniel F. Hinkel, 1 Pindar's Ga. Real Estate Law & Procedure § 8:1 (7th ed., Apr. 2022 update) ("Pindar's"); Jon W. Bruce & James W. Ely, Jr., The Law of Easements & Licenses in Land § 1:1 (Aug. 2022 update). That interest, which can be created in a number of ways, see OCGA § 44-9-1, typically amounts to some limited right to use the land—common examples include the right to access utilities (like power or gas lines), see Simpson v. Colonial Pipeline Co. , 269 Ga. 520, 521 (2), 499 S.E.2d 634 (1998) (gas utility had easement in its gas pipelines across homeowners’ property); Ga. Power Co. v. Leonard , 187 Ga. 608, 609, 1 S.E.2d 579 (1939) (electric utility held easement giving it "the privilege of erecting and maintaining a power line over" subject property while landowner reserved "the right of cultivation and ingress and egress"), or to access other land, see Sadler v. First Nat'.Bank of Baldwin County , 267 Ga. 122, 122, 475 S.E.2d 643 (1996) (bank held easement in access road across other property). This case concerns a kind of easement specific to residential subdivisions.

Both contentions are erroneous. The recording of the Allen Acres subdivision plat showing Carol Street, and the plat's incorporation by reference in the deeds in the Goodsons' chain of title, did not give the Goodsons legal title to Carol Street. “[W]hen property is subdivided and a conveyance is made according to a recorded plat, the purchaser acquires an easement in areas set aside for the purchaser's use....” Sadler v. First Natl. Bank of Baldwin County, 267 Ga. 122, 122, 475 S.E.2d 643 (1996) (emphasis added). An easement created in this manner is an “easement by express grant,” id. at 123, 475 S.E.2d 643, and its usual purpose is ingress and egress, see Pleasure Bluff Dock Club, Inc. v. Poston, 294 Ga.App. 318, 320, 670 S.E.2d 128 (2008).

A trial court's factual findings in a non-jury trial may not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. OCGA § 9-11-52 (a);Sadler v. First Nat'l Bank, 267 Ga. 122 (2) ( 475 S.E.2d 643) (1996). "Furthermore, `since the clearly erroneous test is the same as the any evidence rule, we will not disturb factfindings of the trial court if there is any evidence to sustain them.' [Cit.

See Martin, 231 Ga. at 512-13.Sadler v. First Nat. Bank of Baldwin County, 267 Ga. 122(1) ( 475 S.E.2d 643) (1996). We note that the Forehands do not contend that they are entitled to any further easement by prescription.

Although Sorrow argues that " Tietjen v. Meldrim[] identifies three elements of obstructed access/nonuse abandonment," we do not read Tietjen as establishing such a test, and we note that the quote from Tietjen in Sorrow’s brief is incomplete.Sadler v. First Nat. Bank of Baldwin County , 267 Ga. 122, 123 (2), 475 S.E.2d 643 (1996) (citation and punctuation omitted). 169 Ga. at 700, 151 S.E. 349.

"Where an easement of way has been acquired by grant, the doctrine of extinction by nonuse does not apply; and mere nonuser without further evidence of an intent to abandon such easement will not constitute an abandonment." Sadler v. First Nat. Bank of Baldwin County , 267 Ga. 122, 123 (2), 475 S.E.2d 643 (1996) (citation and punctuation omitted). "Although intent to abandon an easement often is an issue for the factfinder, the issue can be resolved on summary judgment if there is not clear, unequivocal, and decisive evidence of intent."

(Citations omitted.) Sadler v. First Nat. Bank, etc., 267 Ga. 122, 123(1), 475 S.E.2d 643 (1996). 7. Northpark Assocs. No. 2, Ltd., supra at 140(1), 414 S.E.2d 214.

(Citations omitted.) Sadler v. First Nat. Bank, 267 Ga. 122, 123 (1) ( 475 SE2d 643) (1996). Muhammad challenges the trial court's finding of an express easement as error, asserting that Northpark stands for the proposition that when an express easement springs from the creation of a subdivision, property owners gain rights to that easement only if the deed by which they took their property references the subdivision plat.