Legal Opinion

Matoush v. Lovingood

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided November 2, 2006No. 05CA0538PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Judge RUSSEL.

Defendants, David H. Lovingood and Debra Lovingood, appeal the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiff, Carol S. Matoush. We reverse and remand with directions.

I. Background

This case involves a dispute about an easement across residential real property. Plaintiff owns the dominant estate, which is benefited by an express easement "for sewer and water pipes and alley purposes" across the northern ten feet of the servient estates, which belong to defendants and a neighbor.

The following schematic depicts the parties' properties:

[[Image here]]

In 2008, plaintiff brought…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Castle Associates v. SchwartzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
  2. Spiegel v. FerraroNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
  3. Brimstone Mining, Inc. v. GlausMontana Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Lobato v. TaylorSupreme Court of Colorado · 2002
  5. Boccanfuso v. ConnerConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Matoush v. LovingoodSupreme Court of Colorado · 2008
  2. Scott v. County of CusterColorado Court of Appeals · 2007
  3. J.D. Padilla & JDP, LLC v. GhumanColorado Court of Appeals · 2007
  4. Matoush v. LovingoodSupreme Court of Colorado · 2008

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API