An investor owned two adjacent lots in a downtown area, one fronting directly on a public street and the other behind the first. The investor ran a small dry cleaning business on the lot next to the street, and had built a café on the rear lot. Because the rear lot had no access to any public street, the investor used the parking lot of the dry cleaning business, which extended from the street all the way back to the rear lot, for access to the café. The café was only open during the tourist season, from May through September. After several years, the investor sold the rear lot to a chef by a deed that granted an easement over the dry cleaning business's parking lot, to be used as an accessway to the café for the chef and her customers. The chef promptly recorded the deed. Two years later, in February, the investor sold the dry cleaning lot to a sub sandwich franchise. The deed did not mention the easement previously granted to the chef. The franchise immediately demolished the small dry cleaning building and constructed its own restaurant. An outdoor patio area completely blocked access to the chef's rear lot. Because the chef's café was closed for the winter, nothing came of the franchise's construction until April, when the chef returned to open her café for the summer season. The shortest alternate route over other parcels from the chef's lot to a public street would have to pass through several buildings and lots. If the chef brings an action to compel the sub sandwich franchise to demolish the outdoor patio, how should the court rule?A. For the franchise, because its deed contained no mention of the access easement. B. For the franchise, because construction of the outdoor patio extinguished the chef's rights to the access easement. C. For the chef, because ownership of the easement gives her the right to use it for access to her lot. D. For the chef, because she has no other access to her lot.