Martin and Karen Diggs, Appellants, v. Steve Cushman and Lesley Cushman, Appellees. (2023)

Mr. and Mrs. Diggs appeal a final summary judgment confirming that their residential lot is subject to an easement allowing their neighbors to the north, the Cushmans, to reach their own lot. All parties agree that the subdivision plat reflected an “access and utility easement,” made necessary because a sinkhole on what became the Cushmans’ lot precluded direct access to their lot from the subdivision road and cul-de-sac.

The sole issue was, and is, the legal question of defining the phrase “access and utility easement.” The Diggses argued it authorized only utility access, but the trial court agreed with the Cushmans and interpreted the phrase according to its plain meaning as creating both an access easement and a utility easement. We affirm the trial court's judgment. See Buie v. Bluebird Landing Owner's Ass'n, Inc., 172 So. 3d 519, 521 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (requiring courts to apply the plain meaning of terms used in an easement, and noting that “ ‘[a]nd’ is conjunctive and means that both conditions apply”).

Affirmed.

Kelsey, J.

Nordby and Long, JJ., concur.