This decision holds that the trial court erred in granting defendant summary judgment against plaintiff’s claim to quiet title to a railroad easement across plaintiff’s property benefiting defendant’s parcel. Plaintiff claimed the railroad had abandoned the easement. Abandonment depends on cessation of use of the easement for permitted purposes and the easement owner’s intent not to use the easement in the future for those purposes. Triable issues of fact existed regarding three aspects of plaintiff’s abandonment claim. First, the deed granting the easement was ambiguous as to what uses it permitted–any use for communications lines, or use only for those lines in connection with railway usage of the easement. Second, plaintiff’s evidence, if believed, could show that before selling the property the railroad abandoned the easement by concluding it and the adjoining property was unnecessary for railroad purposes and should be sold. Third, the trial court erred in finding no intent to abandon simply because the railroad did not intend to relinquish the easement. Abandonment turns on intent not to use the easement presently or in the future for permitted uses, not intent to extract value from the easement by refusing to release it without compensation