The owner of property filed suit against an adjoining property owner, alleging the adjoining property owner interfered with the owner’s easement rights under a deed. It specifically argued the adjoining property owner violated the easement by enlarging a loading dock platform and impeding the owner’s vehicles’ ingress and egress to the site.
The case is Vito Scarvaglione, Vito Tree Care and Land Management Inc. v. Mansol Realty Associates and Stewart Information Services Corp. d/a/a Stewart Title Guaranty, Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, No. A-5629-18T2).
In 1954, Sol Feldman and two other parties conveyed part of a tract they owned to Learnard Chevrolet Inc. The deed granted Learnard Chevrolet and any other successors a 10-foot-wide easement of ingress and egress to Feldman’s adjoining lot. There has been a loading platform on Feldman’s property since 1953. It faces the 10-foot-wide driveway.
Learnard Chevrolet’s property and easement rights were conveyed in 2008 to Vito Scarvaglione, who had been a tenant on the property since 2005. He operates a tree-cutting business and brings huge logs through the property to be processed into firewood. He uses big large trucks to transport the logs.
In 1954, Feldman and his partners conveyed their parcel to Mansol Realty Associates. Mansol currently leases its parcel to Usdan & Sons Inc., an industrial paper manufacturer. Usdan uses the loading dock to receive large shipments of raw material from paper mills and to ship finished products to consumers.
The dispute concerns whether the loading dock was improperly expanded by Mansol in 2008 in a manner that unreasonably interferes with the easement. Scarvaglione argued the dock was expanded and it impedes his ability to get his trucks in and out of the property, depriving him of the full benefit of the easement. Mansol argues the loading dock was not expanded in 2008 and Scarvaglione’s easement does not have the right to ingress and egress by massive trucks.
In addition, Mansol argued the easement had been reacquired by Mansol through adverse possession, or, alternatively, that the easement has been abandoned. It also argued the easement represents an improper restraint on the alienation of property.
The trial court ruled in favor of Scarvaglione, finding him to be a very credible witness. The court further found the easement had neither been abandoned nor required by Mansol through adverse possession. In addition, after comparing photographs of the loading dock, the court found the loading dock area had been expanded in a manner that violated the terms of the easement.
The court gave Mansol the option of installing a portable or retractable loading dock so the property could accommodate the trucks from Scarvaglione but also allow the loading dock to be utilized by Mansol’s tenant, rather than demolishing the loading dock.
Mansol appealed, urging the appellate court to set aside the trial court’s finding. It argued for the first time on appeal that Scarvaglione’s trucks excessively used the easement right-of-way to a degree beyond which the parties contemplated at the time of the deed. Mansol also argued Scarvaglione did not sustain its burden of proving an expansion of the easement because it did not provide specific measurements of the dimensions of that expansion. Mansol further objected to the lower court’s determination the loading dock needs to be dismantled and replaced with a portable or retractable one.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, first declining to grant Mansol relief based on its newly minted argument Scarvaglione’s large vehicles unreasonably make use of the ingress and egress rights grated by the 1954 deed.
“Second, we are unpersuaded Scarvaglione failed in his burden of proof to establish his easement right was interfered with unreasonably by the reconstructed loading dock,” the court stated. “It has long been established that ‘there is, arising out of every easement, an implied right to do what is reasonably necessary for its complete enjoyment, that right to be exercised, however, in such a reasonable manner as to avoid unnecessary increases in the burden upon the landowner.’ The trial court had sufficient evidence, even without precise measurements, to conclude from the photographs and testimony that the loading dock had been materially enlarged by Mansol to an extent that it intrudes upon Scarvaglione’s use of the easement.”
The court further noted that the trial court had ample ground to reject Mansol’s theories of abandonment and adverse possession.
“Lastly, we likewise defer to the trial judge’s equitable determination that the loading dock must be dismantled and replaced at Mansol’s expense with a retractable or foldable dock. ‘In fashioning relief, a Chancery judge has broad discretionary power to adapt equitable remedies to the particular circumstances of a given case.’ The judge did not manifestly abuse her discretion in this instance. In fact, the judge adopted the alternative remedy based on the unrefuted testimony of the plaintiff estimating the costs of such a device.”