to any genuine issue of material fact, and do not challenge the defendants’ exhibits and affidavits in the manner required by Rule 74.03(e). Their, quarrel is with the trial court’s application of the law. Their sole Point Relied On reads as follows: The trial court erred in summarily finding that defendants could unilaterally alter the character of the road easement from a gravel road to a concrete roadway without the consent of plaintiffs, who were co-owners of the easement, because such alteration was in violation of the road maintenance agreement, a 983) (specifically holding that the owner of a dominant estate was not precluded from subdividing property, even though the volume of traffic might increase substantially); Heigert v. Londell Manor, 834 S.W.2d 858, 868 (Mo.App.1992) (<HOLDING>). Copanas v. Loehr, 876 S.W.2d 691, 696
holding that increase in vehicular traffic arising out of the subdivision of the dominant estate was reasonably foreseeable and so did not restrict the rights of the dominant owner holding that an easement is not a separate estate when dominant and servient tracts are under the same ownership holding that an express easement ran with the dominant estate recognizing that the dominant easement owner not the servient estate owner bears responsibility for maintaining an easement holding that the owner of the dominant tenement may extinguish an easement appurtenant by specifically excluding it from a conveyance of the dominant estate