Two weeks ago, we wrote about an easement in St. Clair County. The right to access a land-locked parcel was granted in an express easement, but the parties disputed whether it was the West Drive or the Gravel Drive, which didn’t exist when the easement was created. The Court agreed with the landowner that the easement grant could not have contemplated a nonexistent drive.
In another case, this one out of Isabella County, the language on the deed granting the easement was even clearer and more specific. It granted an easement (for a similarly land-locked parcel) over a parcel of land 25 feet wide and referred to an attached survey. The survey identified the location of the easement and further stated “EXISTING TRAIL LIES ENTIRELY WITHIN EASEMENT.”
That clear language and specific designation wasn’t enough, however. The easement holder placed gravel in the easement, cleared vegetation to use it for ingress and egress, and used it to improve the attached residential property. He brought the lawsuit when he wanted to put a modular home on the property, which required 22 feet of clearance and would require the removal of additional trees and vegetation.
Meanwhile, the owner of the property containing the easement also used the easement—for family gatherings, picnics, camping, nature walks, and to access the rear of his property. He maintained that removal of any additional trees or vegetation would unreasonably burden and eliminate use of his property.
Oh, and he put a dumpster in the easement that intruded on the easement holder’s ingress and egress.
The Court of Appeals, in Dzingle v. Platt, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued February 14, 2017 (Docket No. 330614), ruled in favor of the easement holder. The Court cited the Michigan Supreme Court’s language that “[a]n easement holder’s rights are paramount to the rights of the soil owner, but only to the extent stated in the easement grant.” Blackhawk Dev Corp v. Village of Dexter, 473 Mich 33, 40; 700 NW2d 314 (1996). It determined that the easement grant for “ingress and egress” was an express right to enter and leave the easement holder’s property that was paramount to the rights of the soil owner, but the exercise of that right must place as little burden as possible on the fee owner of the land.
The Court then explained that the holder of an easement can make improvements to the land only to the extent they are necessary for the effective use of the easement or to the extent they don’t unreasonably burden the landowner. It determined that the clearance of additional trees and vegetation for ingress and egress—which would allow delivery of the modular home—was appropriate and paramount to the alleged burden of the soil owner.
The Court agreed that the dumpster needed to be moved, but it differed from the trial court, which had held that nothing could be placed on the easement that might obstruct the easement holder’s passage over any part of it. No, said the Court of Appeals, the owner of the land has an absolute right to use the easement and can place things on it as long as they don’t interfere with the right of ingress and egress.
So even when a clear description – with a survey – is included in the recorded easement, issues arise. That’s when you should call the attorneys at Dalton & Tomich. We’ll put our real property expertise, particularly with easements, to work for your success.
