38 Wash. App. 777, 689 P.2d 1111 (1984)
On April 1, 1977, plaintiffs Will and Jean Brown purchased land designated as parcel B from the Christensens.1 Parcel B is adjacent to and north of land designated as parcel A owned by defendants Fred and Hattie Voss.2 Access to parcel B is from the south by means of a road that crosses several parcels including parcel A.3 The roadway easement across parcel A arose by express grant to the Christensens to provide access to parcel B.4
On July 31, 1977, the Browns purchased from the Rylanders the contiguous tract designated as parcel C north of parcel B.5 Parcel C was not a dominant estate with respect to the easement across parcel A.6 The Browns plan to build a residence that would straddle the property line between parcels B and C.7
The Browns began clearing parcels B and C in November 1977.8 They performed most of the preparation of the land for construction during the following spring and summer.9 To the existing easement road the Browns connected a new road that they had built across parcels B and C.10 After traversing parcel B, the new road crosses the line between parcels B and C and then loops back onto parcel B.11 The Browns have used the road in connection with their construction activities.12
In February and March of 1978, the Vosses erected a chain link fence along the side of the easement road.13 The parties stipulated that the fence was located upon the 16-foot-wide easement.14 Sometime in 1978, the Vosses placed obstructions on the easement road.15 In March 1979, the Browns sought damages and to enjoin the Vosses from interfering with their use of the easement.16 The Vosses counterclaimed, seeking damages for trespass and an injunction to stop the Browns from using the easement road to gain access to parcel C.17
Before trial, the parties agreed to relocate the easement.18 The trial court's order reflected this agreement by declaring that the plaintiffs have an easement of record.19 It consists of a strip of land 16 feet in width immediately west of the permanent chainlink fence for ingress and egress from the property of plaintiffs.20 The trial court denied the injunction requested by the Vosses.21 It ruled that the easement may be used for ingress to and egress from parcel C as long as the properties are developed and used solely for the purpose of a single family residence.22 The Vosses appealed from the judgment denying their counterclaim for an injunction to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two.23
Whether the easement appurtenant to parcel B may be used to provide access to parcel C?24
A court should construe and enforce an express easement in accordance with the intention of the parties to the grant.25 The easement granted to the Christensens is appurtenant to parcel B but not to parcel C.26 An easement appurtenant may not be used for the benefit of nondominant property.27 By using the easement appurtenant to parcel B to transport construction materials and equipment onto parcel C, a nondominant estate, the dominant estate owners have overburdened and thus misused their easement.28 Similarly, the dominant estate owners will overburden the easement if they use the road for access to a residence that straddles the property line between parcels B and C.29
No. The easement across parcel A arose by express grant to provide access solely to parcel B.30 On July 31, 1977, the Browns purchased parcel C, which was not a dominant estate with respect to the easement across parcel A.31 The Browns began clearing parcels B and C in November 1977. They connected a new road across parcels B and C to the existing easement road.32
The Browns have used the road in connection with their construction activities on parcel C.33 The Browns plan to build a residence that would straddle the property line between parcels B and C. These uses constitute an overburdening of the easement appurtenant only to parcel B.34
The easement appurtenant to parcel B may not be used to provide access to parcel C.35
Whether the trial court erred in denying the Vosses' request for an injunction to prevent use of the easement to benefit parcel C?36
Injunctive relief is granted or withheld at the discretion of the trial court.37 The trial court's decision exercising that discretion will be upheld unless it is based upon untenable grounds, or is manifestly unreasonable, or is arbitrary.38 In deciding whether to grant or deny a request for a permanent injunction, a trial court must make a comparative appraisal of all of the factors in the case, including the character of the interest to be protected, the relative adequacy to the plaintiff of injunction and of other available remedies such as damages, plaintiff's delay in bringing suit, plaintiff's misconduct if any, the relative hardship likely to result to defendant if the injunction is granted and to plaintiff if it is denied, the interest of third parties and of the public, and the practicability of framing and enforcing the order or judgment.39
Yes. The character of the interest to be protected is a real property interest in parcel A other than those limited by the express easement appurtenant to parcel B.40 The misuse of the easement is a trespass to real property.41 Where a continuing condition such as the planned location for the residence would result in frequent trespasses, an award of damages is not a sufficient remedy.42
The Vosses did not delay unreasonably in seeking injunctive relief.43 The actual construction of the home on the line between parcels B and C did not begin until March 30, 1979.44 The Vosses filed their counterclaim on April 16, 1979.45 There is no misconduct by the Vosses related to their suit.46
The trial court determined that the Browns' planned use was reasonable and that the Vosses would suffer no appreciable hardship.47 This fails to recognize that an injury to the Vosses' property rights occurs when the easement is burdened by use for access to parcel C.48 The Browns knew or should have known from the public records that the easement appurtenant to parcel B did not provide access to parcel C.49 The hardship they complain of is self-inflicted and entitled to significantly less weight.50
The other property owners' legal rights likely would be protected by granting the injunction.51 Framing and enforcing an injunction is not impracticable.52 The trial court has jurisdiction over the parties and the real property.53 Enforcement could be accomplished by suspending the easement if necessary.54
Under these circumstances, the trial court's decision denying the injunction was based upon untenable grounds.55
The trial court erred in denying the Vosses' request for an injunction.56