Pamela Holladay v. Frank I. Alexander, II

── Pamela Holladay v. Frank I. Alexander, II ── Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky Date: May 22, 2026 Author: L. Jones Category: General RENDERED: MAY 22, 2026; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2025-CA-0092-MR FRANK L. ALEXANDER, II AND ROYA ALEXANDER APPELLANTS APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE MITCHELL PERRY, JUDGE ACTION NO. 13-CI-004714 PAMELA HOLLADAY AND THE ESTATE OF KIRBY HOLLADAY APPELLEES AND NO. 2025-CA-0118-MR PAMELA HOLLADAY AND THE ESTATE OF KIRBY HOLLADAY CROSS-APPELLANTS CROSS-APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE MITCHELL PERRY, JUDGE ACTION NO. 13-CI-004714 FRANK L. ALEXANDER, II AND ROYA ALEXANDER CROSS-APPELLEES  OPINION AFFIRMING APPEAL NO. 2025-CA-0092-MR AND AFFIRMING APPEAL NO. 2025-CA-0118-MR IN PART, REVERSING IN PART, AND REMANDING ** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; L. JONES AND MCNEILL, JUDGES. JONES, L., JUDGE: This is the third appeal directly involving the scope and interpretation of an easement for ingress, egress, and parking between two adjoining landowners in Jefferson County, Kentucky. Pamela Holladay and the Estate of Kirby Holladay (Holladays1) own the dominant estate; Frank and Roya Alexander (Alexanders) own the servient estate.2 Both appeal from the trial court’s December 20, 2024 order which, among other matters, required the Alexanders to reconstruct a parking pad on the easement and denied the Holladays’ request for an injunction. We affirm Appeal No. 2025-CA-0092-MR. And, in Appeal No. 2025-CA-0118-MR, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for entry of an order granting a permanent injunction. 1 Though Kirby Holladay has passed away, for the sake of convenience we shall refer to the Appellants/Cross-Appellees as the Holladays. 2 “The land benefiting from an easement is called the dominant estate; the land burdened by an easement is called the servient estate.” Easement, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024). -2- I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY These appeals stem from an easement granted by a predecessor in title of the Alexanders’ property to a predecessor in title of the Holladays’ adjacent property. The easement’s relevant terms are: WHEREAS, the Grantors and Grantee are the owners of adjacent properties and desire to cooperate to provide a parking and access area for the benefit of both the Grantors and Grantee, whereby access is given to the Grantee across the property of the Grantors, and parking area is provided on the property of the Grantors. . . . Therefore, in consideration of One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration, consisting of Grantee’s performance of work in developing the parking area and the access way and the Grantee’s agreeing to bear the cost of same, the Grantors hereby grant, assign and convey this easement in, to and upon and over that portion of Tract A, described as follows: Consisting of the southernmost fifteen (15) feet of Tract A, extending from the east boundary of Tract A, which is contiguous with the east boundary line of Tract B. The purpose of the easement is to provide pedestrian and vehicular access, ingress and egress from the alley between Fourth Avenue and St. James Court, which is contiguous with the east boundary line of Tract A, across Tract A for the benefit of Tract B. The Owner of