and full use of the easement for ingress and egress to and from Plaintiff's Property to and from MacArthur Road. Defendant will substantially interfere with the easement.
As a result of Defendant's alteration, modification, and limitation of the easement and Defendant's violation of the Declaration of Easements, both Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenor will suffer immediate and irreparable harm for which no adequate remedy at law exists.
The balance of harms weighs in favor of Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenor.
Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenor are entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from constructing and erecting any barriers, curbs, or other obstructions in the easement area, including traffic signs and signals and lane demarcation lines that would direct traffic away from Plaintiff's property, and further prohibiting Defendant from otherwise violating the terms of the Declaration of Easements in any manner.
An implied easement exists in favor of Plaintiff-Intervenor with respect to maintaining its freestanding sign in place on Defendant's property in its present location.
Defendant's land development plan, stating that the Levitz sign is to be relocated as directed by the developer, violates Plaintiff-Intervenor's implied easement and its right to maintain the sign in its present location. Defendant will violate the implied easement by relocating the Levitz sign.
As a result of Defendant's violation of the implied easement, Plaintiff-Intervenor will suffer immediate and irreparable harm for which no adequate remedy at law exists.
Defendant and its predecessors in title, by their silence, induced Plaintiff-Intervenor to believe its sign would not be removed.
Plaintiff-Intervenor justifiably relied upon that inducement to its detriment.
The doctrine of equitable estoppel applies to prevent Defendant from removing Plaintiff-Intervenor's sign.
Plaintiff-Intervenor is entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from removing or relocating the Levitz sign or otherwise interfering with or diminishing Plaintiff-Intervenor's rights for the continued maintenance of the sign in place under its implied easement.
An appropriate order follows.
Daniel H. Huyett, 3rd, Judge
May 5, 1993
Upon consideration of the evidence at trial and the findings of fact, discussion, and conclusions of law, JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of Plaintiff Louis W. Epstein Family Partnership and Plaintiff-Intervenor Levitz Furniture Corporation and against Defendant Kmart Corporation.
Defendant Kmart Corporation is PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from constructing or erecting any barriers, fences, curbs, or other obstructions within the easement area described in the Declaration of Easements between Louis W. Epstein and Myrtle Epstein, his wife, and Morris Epstein dated October 21, 1975 and recorded in the Lehigh County Recorder of Deeds Office in Miscellaneous Book Volume 391, page 697. Defendant is permanently enjoined from erecting any traffic signals and signs, and painting lane demarcation lines, in the easement area, that would direct traffic in respect to Plaintiff's property. Defendant is permanently enjoined from otherwise violating any of the terms of the Declaration of Easements.
Defendant Kmart Corporation is permanently enjoined from removing or relocating Levitz's freestanding sign located on Defendant's property or otherwise interfering with or diminishing the implied easement for the Levitz sign.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Daniel H. Huyett, 3rd, Judge
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.