By prior order, the Court held that Defendant had an easement allowing use of Plaintiff’s airport property. By the current order, the Court determined that, based on the language of the express easement, Defendant’s easement was limited to use of the runways and taxiways for purposes of taxiing, take off, and landing an aircraft. The Court found both parties liable for trespass for interfering with the other’s enjoyment of property rights. Defendant trespassed against Plaintiff by entering the airport property for purposes other than those allowed by his easement. Plaintiff trespassed against Defendant by preventing Defendant from using his easement. The Court further found that the same conduct by the parties did not rise to the level of nuisance, as their actions resulted in direct rather than indirect interference with property rights. Furthermore, Defendant did not tortuously interfere with Plaintiff’s business as there was no evidence that Plaintiff had a business relationship with any of the airport’s customers and there was no evidence any customers ceased doing business with Plaintiff or failed to enter into a business relationship with Plaintiff as a result of Defendant’s actions. The Court granted both parties an injunction with the effect of allowing Defendant full use of his easement without exceeding the scope of his easement. The Court further awarded both parties nominal damages of $100 and awarded Defendant compensatory damages of $500. The Court declined to award punitive damages or attorney fees due to the parties’ shared responsibility for the actions giving rise to the litigation and the prolonged nature of the litigation.