George Amah challenged a partial summary judgment ruling in a dispute with Whitefield Academy over a 20-foot easement crossing his property. The Academy sought relief after alleging that Amah encroached on the easement and neighboring property; the trial court held that the Academy’s deed unambiguously granted unrestricted access and relied on recorded documents presented with the motions. The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the ruling ejecting Amah from the Academy’s easement but reversed the ruling that its scope was unlimited. The easement granted ingress and egress “to and from a residence,” language that could reasonably mean access only for residential purposes, and the reference to a residence could not be treated as meaningless. Because the deed was ambiguous, the trial court had to apply accepted construction rules, including considering surrounding circumstances and parol evidence; any unresolved ambiguity would require a trial. The court also explained that recorded property documents fall within the New Evidence Code’s hearsay exception for records affecting property interests. Amah’s authentication objection, however, was not reviewable because he had not objected when the documents were used. The case was remanded to determine the authorized scope of the easement.