Henson v. Thomas, [Ms. 2190587, Dec. 11, 2020], ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2020). While affirming certain aspects of the Circuit Court’s judgment in this dispute between adjoining landowners, the court (Moore, J.; Thompson, P.J., and Donaldson, Edwards, and Hanson, JJ., concur) reverses the judgment insofar as it terminated a written easement. The court explains “although the easement in favor of Henson stated that it was ‘[a] perpetual easement for ingress and egress over and across an existing roadway,’ it was given ‘without condition or reference to a specific purpose.’ Therefore, like in Lawley [v. Abbott, 642 So. 2d 707(Ala. 1994)], we conclude that the trial court erred in extinguishing the easement simply because Henson now has an alternative means of egress and ingress to his property.” Ms. *14.
