The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply the merger doctrine to void a driveway easement which was the only means of access to the plaintiff’s property. Defendant had owned both adjoining parcels at one point, but had promptly taken out a loan on the property benefited by the easement–a loan that probably wouldn’t have been made if the lender knew the property had no access. Plaintiff bought that property after foreclosure of the loan. The trial court properly declined to apply merger because to do so would be inequitable and because defendant didn’t hold a unity of interest in the two properties since he had given a deed of trust on one of them.