The “Depicted-Access Facilities” Doctrine:
Alabama Supreme Court Clarifies When Easement Alterations Require Unanimous Consent

Introduction

790 Montclair, LLC v. The Station at Crestline Heights, LLC (SC-2024-0100, July 3, 2025) presented the Supreme Court of Alabama with a modern variation of a classic real-property dispute: When does a parcel owner inside a reciprocal easement agreement need unanimous consent from fellow owners before modifying the property? The controversy arose after The Station at Crestline Heights, LLC (“The Station”) cut a new entrance (“curb cut”) through a sidewalk on Dan Hudson Drive to satisfy municipal fire-access requirements for a 277-unit, $60 million apartment complex. Neighboring owner 790 Montclair, LLC argued that the curb cut altered an “access facility” protected by a 2018 Declaration of Reciprocal Easements and therefore required prior written approval from all owners. The trial court denied Montclair’s request for a preliminary injunction, and Montclair appealed.

In affirming, the Supreme Court of Alabama articulated a new, precision-oriented rule: Alteration approval is required only for those access facilities that are both (i) “located on the Parcels” and (ii) affirmatively depicted in the plat or exhibit incorporated by the easement instrument. Because the sidewalk The Station modified was not depicted on Exhibit C, it was not an “access facility,” so unanimous consent was unnecessary. This commentary dissects the decision, its reasoning, and its future implications.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court unanimously (with two Justices concurring in the result) affirmed the Jefferson Circuit Court’s order denying a preliminary injunction. Justice Sellers, writing for the Court, held that:

• The 2018 reciprocal easement defines “Access Facilities” objectively: only the private drives, bridges, and sidewalks depicted on Exhibit C qualify.
• The east-side sidewalk altered by The Station is not depicted on Exhibit C; therefore it is not an “access facility.”
• Because no contractual provision was breached, Montclair failed to show likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, or a balance of hardships favoring an injunction under Holiday Isle, LLC v. Adkins.
• Any theoretical injury is compensable in damages, precluding equitable relief.

Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Detailed Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Holiday Isle, LLC v. Adkins, 12 So. 3d 1173 (Ala. 2008)
   Establishes the four-part test for preliminary injunctions. The Court applied it to evaluate Montclair’s showing.
2. Bethel v. Franklin, 381 So. 3d 1121 (Ala. 2023)
   Confirms de novo review of legal rulings and abuse-of-discretion review of injunction decisions, and that facts taken ore tenus are presumed correct.
3. State v. Epic Tech, LLC, 378 So. 3d 467 (Ala. 2022)
   Reiterates the ore-tenus presumption—a critical shield for the trial court’s fact-findings in this case.
4. Water Works & Sewer Bd. of Birmingham v. Inland Lake Invs., LLC, 31 So. 3d 686 (Ala. 2009)
   Defines “irreparable harm” as not redressable by money damages. The Court used this to reject Montclair’s irreparable-harm argument.
5. West Town Plaza Assocs., Ltd. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 619 So. 2d 1290 (Ala. 1993)
   Recognizes that obstruction of a dominant-estate easement is uniquely irreparable. Cited by Montclair; distinguished by the Court because the 2018 agreement created no dominant/servient estates.
6. Brown v. Alabama Power Co., 275 Ala. 467, 156 So. 2d 153 (1963)
   Quoted in West Town; re-examined to clarify that equitable removal of obstructions depends on the existence of a dominant right.
7. 112 A.L.R. 1303 (1938) Annotation
   Recognizes an easement holder’s right to make reasonable improvements. Used to support the view that a curb cut can be an “improvement,” not an “alteration.”

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Contractual Text Controls
   The easement’s definition of “Access Facilities” incorporated two qualifiers: (1) facilities “located on the Parcels” and (2) “depicted on Exhibit C.” Montclair leaned heavily on the broad phrase “located on the Parcels.” The Court, employing standard textualism, held that both conditions must be met. It called the instrument “unambiguous.”
2. Exhibit-Based Limitation → The New Doctrine
   By giving dispositive weight to the attached exhibit, the Court crystalized what practitioners will recognize as the Depicted-Access Facilities Doctrine: Only those ways expressly drawn on the recorded plat receive alteration protection. The decision thereby elevates plats from illustrative to determinative.
3. Absence of Dominant/Servient Estates
   The Court accepted testimony from Baptist Health’s CEO that the easement is non-exclusive and reciprocal with no dominant estate. That finding undercut Montclair’s reliance on West Town.
4. No “Material Interference” Proven
   Section 2 allowed parcel owners to use easement areas for “other purposes that do not materially interfere” with others’ enjoyment. Because Montclair never used Dan Hudson Drive and offered no evidence of interference, the curb cut fit comfortably within permissible use.
5. Inadequacy-of-Damages and Hardship Balance
   The Court found any potential injury compensable, and that ordering closure of the only second fire-access point would impose disproportionate hardship on The Station. Both findings doomed the injunction under Holiday Isle.

C. Impact on Future Litigation and Real-Estate Practice

• Elevating Recorded Exhibits – Lawyers drafting reciprocal easements must now assume that only depicted ways are alteration-protected. Future plats will likely be more detailed, depicting every sidewalk, bridge, or driveway owners wish to freeze.
• Municipal Compliance vs. Easement Consent – Developers needing curb cuts to satisfy city codes gain leverage: if a sidewalk is un-depicted, unanimous consent is likely unnecessary.
• Dominant-Estate Distinction Clarified – Alabama law now explicitly links heightened injunctive protection (West Town) to the existence of a dominant estate. Where none exists, money damages may suffice.
• Preliminary-Injunction Strategy – Plaintiffs must now marshal evidence showing material interference and unavailability of damages; conclusory assertions of “property rights” will not carry the day.
• Transactional Due Diligence – Buyers of campus-style tracts (e.g., redeveloped hospitals, malls, industrial parks) must scrutinize exhibits and demand updates before closing.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Reciprocal Easement Agreement (REA) – A contract among multiple parcel owners granting shared rights of access or utilities, typically recorded, running with the land.
• Dominant vs. Servient Estate – In a traditional easement, the dominant estate benefits and the servient estate bears the burden. In a purely reciprocal easement (no dominant estate), all parties enjoy similar rights and obligations.
• Curb Cut – A portion of curb/sidewalk lowered or removed to create vehicular access from a street to private property. Frequently mandated by fire codes or accessibility laws.
• Ore Tenus Rule – When a trial judge hears live testimony, appellate courts defer to factual findings unless plainly wrong, owing to the judge’s unique ability to observe witnesses.
• Preliminary Injunction – An interim court order preserving the status quo during litigation, granted only after a rigorous four-factor test (irreparable harm, inadequate remedy at law, likelihood of success, and balance of hardships).

Conclusion

790 Montclair, LLC v. The Station at Crestline Heights, LLC establishes a clear, bright-line rule that will guide Alabama courts and practitioners: The protective consent requirement for altering access facilities in a reciprocal easement attaches only to facilities expressly depicted in the recorded exhibit. By tying legal protection to visual depiction, the Court promotes certainty and incentivizes meticulous drafting. The decision also reaffirms rigorous application of the preliminary-injunction standard, emphasizing evidentiary proof of material interference and irreparable harm. As mixed-use redevelopments proliferate, this case will serve as a blueprint for balancing development needs, municipal compliance, and neighboring property rights.