To access case, press here
Armand Murat sought to enjoin the Elks and Burkhart Advertising, Inc. from placing a billboard within an area over which he has an easement for ingress and egress. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order, but later dissolved it and denied Murat’s request for a permanent injunction.
Conclusion (slip op. at 9): The trial court did not err by concluding the sign would not interfere with reasonable ingress and egress to Murat’s lot and declining to award a permanent injunction. Affirmed.
Key Analysis (slip op. at 7, 8): Murat has not shown why the contemporaneous document doctrine should apply, and the trial court did not err by declining to find controlling the width set out in the Dockery-Murat deed . . . We cannot say the evidence points unerringly to the conclusion that placing the sign in the grassy area will interfere with Murat’s reasonable use of the easement.