Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

RODNEY SPARKS v. MICHAEL TRUMBULL, ET UX.

This appeal arises from an ongoing dispute between neighbors regarding an easement allowing the Trumbulls access to a well on Mr. Sparks’ property. This well supplies water to the Trumbulls’ residence.

In 2005, the parties entered into an agreement, which was incorporated into a consent order, whereby Mr. Sparks agreed to allow the Trumbulls and their agents to enter his property to maintain the well as long as they gave him proper notice. A party violating the order was subject to contempt proceedings.

Mr. Sparks raises several issues for review, consolidated and rephrased as follows:

1. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Sparks petition for contempt and granting the Trumbull’s Motion to Enforce the Consent Order?

2. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in excluding a videotape offered by Mr. Sparks?

3. Did the circuit court err in ordering Mr. Sparks to pay $1,500 to the Trumbulls, pursuant to the terms of the consent order, as reimbursement for counsel fees?

Read the unreported opinion.