Although words fly away and writings remain, it is still necessary to interpret them correctly. Thus, an Owner, who bought a building burdened with an easement of reciprocal passage with the adjacent property, ...
Although words fly away and writings remain, it is still necessary to interpret them correctly.
Thus, an Owner, having purchased a building burdened with a reciprocal right of way with the adjacent property, built two loading docks within the scope of the easement, in addition to the four others already built. Although encroaching on the easement, these docks do not impede the passage of trucks.
Several years pass before a Developer acquires the neighboring property burdened with the aforementioned reciprocal right of way. After ensuring obtaining the city's approval to change the zoning from industrial to residential and commercial, the Developer asks the Owner to cease using the reciprocal easement for loading and unloading purposes and to demolish two docks built by the latter. Following the Owner's refusal, the Developer turns to the Court. The Court rules in favor of the Developer, arguing that the text of the easement is clear because it "creates a right of way, not a parking right." The Owner appeals the case*. The tribunal finds that:
- the easement does grant a reciprocal right of way, but it is silent on the possibility for trucks to make stops for loading or unloading;
- the parties, when creating the right of way, provided that it "must be exercised with flexibility, so as to cause the least inconvenience and that [their] intention was for trucks to be able to stop to load or unload."
The tribunal concludes that "the trial judge erred in sticking to the literal meaning of the easement, instead of seeking the true intention of the parties when they created it."
Even when seeking to know the parties' intention, remember what Paul Valéry wrote: "it is always those animated by the best intentions who become monsters."
*C.A. 500-09-024128-134
