Harpeth Crest HOA v. Cypressbrook Coley Davis, General Partnership, M2024-00732-COA-R3-CV

Cypressbrook, owner of a 40-acre property in Nashville, sought to develop the land, which is accessible only via a gravel road over adjacent property owned by the Harpeth Crest HOA.
The HOA filed for a declaratory judgment, claiming Cypressbrook did not have an easement to use the gravel road for ingress/egress, especially for construction purposes linked to a new development.
Cypressbrook countered, asserting it held an express easement, documented in recorded deeds and plats, supporting unrestricted ingress/egress for normal development, including construction.
Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court found for Cypressbrook, determining an express easement exists and that temporary construction traffic did not overburden the servient estate.
On appeal, the core dispute was whether the planned construction use exceeded the scope of the easement and posed an impermissible burden on HOA land.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (HOA)	Defendant's Argument (Cypressbrook)	Held
Existence of Express Easement	No valid easement exists; recorded documents were insufficient.	Deeds and plats show an express, appurtenant easement for ingress/egress.	Cypressbrook holds an express, appurtenant easement across HOA property.
Overburdening of Easement	Planned construction and increased traffic exceed scope; overburdens servient estate.	Use is temporary and within normal development; easement includes unrestricted access; traffic levels similar to past use.	Anticipated construction and related traffic do not unreasonably overburden the easement.
Use Limited to Past Practice	Easement was only intended for rural/residential, not development or heavy construction.	No restrictions in the easement; past and future use includes normal development per grantor's intent.	No use restrictions found; normal development (including construction) is within intended use.
Impact of Zoning/Development Change	Rezoning and change in property use are too abrupt and not anticipated by original easement grant.	Modern zoning changes are valid; Metro-approved development is consistent with normal development of dominant estate.	Rezoning/development is normal progression; easement allows for this development.

Bain v. Wells, 936 S.W.2d 618 (Tenn. 1997) (summary judgment review standard)
Hall v. Pippin, 984 S.W.2d 617 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (defining easement requirements)
Pevear v. Hunt, 924 S.W.2d 114 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (categorizing types of easements)
Moore v. Queener, 464 S.W.2d 296 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1970) (easement established by recorded plat)
Smith v. Black, 547 S.W.2d 947 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976) (scope of express easements)
Cellco P’ship v. Shelby Cnty., 172 S.W.3d 574 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (appurtenant vs. gross easements)
Jones v. Ross, 388 S.W.2d 640 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1963) (servient estate takes property subject to recorded easements)