We find no clear error in the trial court’s characterization of the Freemans’ testimony. See Farmers Ins. Co. v. Young, 195 Ariz. 22, 28, ¶ 19, 985 P.2d 507, 513 (App.1998). Mr. Freeman testified that, in approximately 2000, before Sorchych purchased his property, he had a conversation with Sorchych, in which Sorchych "agreed to help” with roadway maintenance. Mrs. Freeman also testified that, sometime after Sorchych purchased his property, "probably in the Spring of 2002,” she had a casual discussion "over the back fence” with Sorchych about "neighbor stuff,” including the road’s deterioration in the previous four or five years, and he agreed to "participate” in bringing the road back up to the standard before that alleged deterioration. She could not uper. 1, 76 A.2d 76, 81 (1950) (<HOLDING>); Green v. Duke Power Co., 305 N.C. 603, 290
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 holding that owners of access easement had no claim for severance damages arising from condemnation of servient tenement holding that the dominant tenement a power company rather than the servient tenement had affirmative duties of inspection and repair related to its easement holding that owners of a dominant estate had a duty to keep the easement in a proper state of repair to avoid damaging the servient estate through erosion