has been established, the easement holder must not change the use for which the easement was created so as to increase the burden of the servient tract.’ ” Swaim v. Simpson, 120 N.C. App. 863, 864, 463 S.E.2d 785, 786 (1995) (citing I. Patrick K. Hetrick & James B. McLaughlin, Jr., Webster’s Real Estate Law in North Carolina § 15-21 (4th ed. 1994) (alteration in original)), aff’d, 343 N.C. 298, 469 S.E.2d 553 (1996). The scope of the easement vested in defendants by section 136-67 is that right of ingress and egress held by the public which formerly used the roadway. Defendants cannot be allowed to enlarge the use of the easement, absent some legal right to do so. Mere grant of the right of ingress and egress does not allow defendants to install a sewer line on that property. See id. (<HOLDING>). Defendants also contend that summary judgment
holding that the plaintiffs liability to the defendant was absolved as a result of the bankruptcy order and the defendants were barred from collecting debts from property of the plaintiffs holding that an express easement ran with the dominant estate holding that the plaintiffs express easement of rightofway for ingress and egress over the defendants property would not be enlarged to allow the installation of an underground utility and telephone lines on the defendants property absent express provision for such although the plaintiffs deed restricted his lot to residential use holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property holding that where an express easement created by agreement afforded a property owner a legally enforceable right of ingress and egress strict necessity under section 228342 is not established