The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

At one time, D owned both properties. In 1988, D severed the front lot, selling it to the City of Denmark. The City continued using the driveway to access the rear of the building. Eventually, City sold the lot and building to P's husband, who in turn transferred it to P to use as a retail antique store. Driveway access was a consideration in the decision to purchase the property. D gave P access to the driveway by allowing her to have a lock and key to the gate located at the street fronting on D's property. P used this driveway to accept deliveries from tractor-trailers carrying large furniture. After 9-11 D increased the security to its property, by building a fence and cutting off P's access to the driveway. P sued for an easement by necessity and an easement by pre-existing use. P claimed D made representations to her husband at the time he purchased the property, estopping D from claiming no easement existed. The case was referred to a special referee. The referee concluded no questions of fact existed and granted D summary judgment. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.