An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. While citation is disfavored, it may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals addressed a dispute over whether landowners burdened by an easement could erect a gate across it to restrict public use. Although unpublished - and thus non-controlling authority, the opinion highlights recurring tensions between dominant and servient estate holders, particularly in cases involving historic, heavily trafficked easements across private mountain property.

The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded a Caldwell County trial court's summary judgment that had favored the easement holder (Hibriten Mountain, LLC). Central to the decision was whether the easement deed expressly or implicitly required the easement to remain "open," thereby prohibiting gates, and whether unresolved factual issues precluded summary judgment.

Hibriten Mountain, a well-known Caldwell County landmark, is privately owned and accessed primarily by a private road branching from state-maintained Hibriten Mountain Road (S.R. 1714). The road providing access up the mountain was subject to a 50-foot-wide reserved easement recorded decades earlier. Plaintiff Hibriten Mountain, LLC is the successor to the dominant tract benefitting from this easement. The defendants purchased property along the lower section of the road. Their driveway forks off the private road approximately 230-240 feet from S.R. 1714.

Years earlier, with apparent permission from prior landowners, the U.S. Forest Service installed a gate approximately 600 feet up the road and 400 feet beyond the defendants' driveway fork.

Ignoring the gate, members of the public routinely trespassed along the road for hiking, driving, horseback riding, and ATV use. The defendants documented recurring nuisances: parked cars blocking their access, trash left behind, property damage, and trespassers appearing near their home at all hours. In response, they began constructing a gate at the start of the private road, right at the terminus of S.R. 1714. Construction was halted after Hibriten Mountain, LLC filed suit seeking injunctive relief, claiming the gate unlawfully obstructed the easement.

The Superior Court granted summary judgment to Hibriten Mountain, LLC and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the gate. The trial court's findings emphasized the road's long-standing use for access to utilities and public services and noted the easement's historical importance. The defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied and they appealed, challenging the ruling that the easement must remain open despite the lack of express language in the deed requiring it to be kept open. The trial court's injunction was stayed pending appeal.

The Court of Appeals addressed whether the trial court erred in ruling that the easement must remain open despite no express language in the deed prohibiting gates and whether genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the defendants could lawfully erect a gate without unreasonably impairing the easement holder's use?

The opinion discusses North Carolina common law principles that easements are construed under contract law principles and if the grant's language is clear and unambiguous, courts must enforce its terms as written, without inserting obligations or restrictions not expressly included. The question of ambiguity arises only where extrinsic evidence or disputed facts are required to ascertain intent.

The easement here reserved:

Perpetual ingress/egress rights;
Authority to construct and improve a road;
Authority to dedicate the road to public use in the future;
Rights to grant additional utility easements.

The Court looked to the opinion in Taylor v. Hiatt, 265 N.C. App. 665 (2019) as controlling.

We must look at the words in the easement to determine whether a servient estate holder may erect a gate over the easement. If an easement includes express language for the easement to remain open, or if the language in the easement 'appears from the terms of the grant or the circumstance that such was the intention,' the servient estate holder may not erect any barrier across the easement. ... In the absence of such express language or express intent, the servient estate 'may erect gates across the way when (1) necessary to the reasonable enjoyment of his estate, (2) provided they [do not] ... materially impair or unreasonably interfere with the use of the lane as a private way for the purposes for which it has theretofore been used.''

The Court of Appeals emphasized that in this grant there existed no express requirement for the road to remain open. The plaintiff's argument rested on the broad potential scope of the easement permitting future dedication to public use, utility expansion. However, such future possibilities did not establish a present prohibition against gates. The Court concluded that the deed's broad language did not constitute an intention for the easement to remain open. Thus, the trial court erred in concluding otherwise as a matter of law.

That left the issue of whether the defendants factually had a right to install gates. The opinion acknowledges the general rule:

A servient estate owner may install gates across an easement when necessary for reasonable enjoyment of their property, so long as the gates do not materially impair or unreasonably interfere with the dominant estate's rights.

The opinion observes that the defendants presented undisputed evidence of trespass, nuisance, and property damage. Whether a gate would be "necessary" and whether it would "materially impair" Hibriten Mountain, LLC's access remained fact questions and that rendered the trial Court's summary judgment order in favor of Hibriten Mountain, LLC improper. That said. The Court concluded that the defendants were not automatically entitled to judgment either, since the reasonableness of the proposed gate required factual determination by the trial court. Thus, the Court of Appeals vacated summary judgment for Hibriten Mountain, LLC and vacated in part the denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the question of easement openness and affirmed in part the denial of the defendants' summary judgment motion because factual disputes exist over the gate's reasonableness, remanding for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

It is important to observe that our North Carolina appellate decisions are consistent in holding that when interpreting easements, that deed language controls. Easement restrictions, such as a requirement to remain open, must be expressly stated or unmistakably implied. Courts will not insert obligations that are absent from the deed. Even where an easement exists, the servient landowners may make reasonable use of the easement and implement reasonable protective measures (e.g., gates) if they do not unreasonably interfere with the dominant estate's use.

Disputes over whether a gate is "reasonable" typically require fact-finding, making summary judgment inappropriate.

While Hibriten Mountain is unpublished and lacks precedential weight, it illustrates how North Carolina courts balance dominant and servient estate rights in gate/easement conflicts. North Carolina law has long recognized a tension between ensuring that easements may be used as intended by the parties and preserving servient owners' rights. This decision builds upon prior cases, including:

Taylor v. Hiatt 279 N.C. App. 506 (2021): Reaffirmed that gates may be permissible absent express deed restrictions.
Setzer v. Annas 286 N.C. 534 (1975): Courts may determine intent from deed terms and surrounding circumstances.
Chesson v. Jordan 224 N.C. 289 (1944): Fact-intensive inquiries govern whether gates unreasonably interfere with easement use.

This case underscores the fact that practical realities like trespass, nuisance, and modern land-use pressures often drive litigation as much as abstract deed interpretation. Hibriten Mountain, LLC v. Diggs offers important guidance to practitioners counseling clients on easement rights in North Carolina. Attorneys should carefully review easement deeds and consider both historic intent and current land-use realities when advising clients. Although unpublished, the case reinforces key doctrines:

Easements must be enforced as written.
Servient estate owners retain significant, though not unlimited, autonomy.
Disputes about gates and similar obstructions are rarely amenable to summary judgment.