amended or terminated, in whole or in part, only by agreement of a majority of the Owners in writing.” There was no evidence offered in support of summary judgment showing that Ippolite or the “Owners” complied with this provision of the Declaration. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the amended declarations impose an easement on Parcel A and that the Hagelins were or should have been aware of that easement. Because there was no undisputed evidence offered to show that the Davids took the property with notice of a dock easement and because the documents do not unambiguously create an easement for use of or access to the dock on Parcel A, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on this issue. See Buie v. Bluebird Landing Owner’s Ass’n, 172 So.3d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (<HOLDING>); Palm Beach Pain Mgmt., Inc. v. Carroll, 7
holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that summary judgment was improperly granted where record did not disclose that the plaintiff would be unable to produce supporting evidence at trial holding that because the language of the easement was ambiguous the parties intentions were not clear and summary judgment was improperly granted recognizing that an easement may entitle the easement owner to do acts which were not for the easement would constitute a nuisance holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed