Over the past several weeks, we’ve looked at several different types of easements and an array of legal questions surrounding them. We discussed utility easements, which continue to run with the land to grant municipalities or utility companies access to land owned by another.
This week, we examine a situation where a municipality went too far and claimed rights not contained in the easement. And once again, a party in the case switched sides on the easement, similar to the Marlette Auto Wash case we discussed last week.
In 1990, the Village of Dexter sought to condemn about an acre of property owned by the Kingsley Trust, administered by John Kingsley. The Village wanted to move and improve a road on the property where it intersected with a major roadway. The Trust and Village reached a deal where the Trust granted an express easement on an acre of its land for public roadway purposes. It was specifically “for the purposes of relocating, establishing, opening and improving (the) Road . . . .”
The road was moved and the Village completed its construction on the easement. Some years later, the Trust sold its property to Blackhawk Development, and John Kingsley, through another corporation, bought adjacent land that he wanted to develop. Although it had access to the major roadway, it was separated from the new road, which was constructed on the easement, by land subject to the easement.
Kingsley submitted a proposal to develop the land, including plans to develop that part of the land which he (nor his trust) no longer owned but which was subject to the easement. The Village rejected the plan and told him he’d have to buy the property from Blackhawk. Blackhawk refused to sell.
Not deterred, Kingsley went back to the Village with another plan. He removed anything that could be construed as private development from the land subject to the easement, but kept utilities, sidewalks, and access roads that would benefit his commercial property. Those purportedly public developments could be made, he argued, on Blackhawk’s land subject to the easement.
The Village agreed, and Blackhawk sued for injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and trespass. The trial court held that the terms “roadway purposes” and “improvement” in the original settlement and easement were ambiguous and sided with the Village. The Court of Appeals affirmed that decision, albeit for other reasons. It held that the language was not ambiguous, but the developments proposed by Kingsley benefited the public and fell within the easement.
In Blackhawk Development Corp. v. Village of Dexter,[1] the Michigan Supreme Court reversed and remanded because the proposed public use of the easement exceeded its scope. It was granted specifically for the purposes of relocating and improving one road, not to provide access and benefits to an adjoining parcel.
The Court defined an easement as a privilege to burden the soil owner’s estate which is paramount to the soil owner’s rights “only to the extent stated in the easement grant.” The careful balancing act results in the maxim that “[t]he use of an easement must be confined strictly to the purposes for which it was granted or reserved.” [2]
None of the proposed construction could be construed as improvements to the new road addressed in the easement, according to the Court. “Without question, Kingsley’s planned use of the land covered by the easement served the exclusive purpose of furthering and enhancing his private complex.” [3]
The Supreme Court noted that the Village justified its decision, in part, on a claim that Kingsley’s new parcel was landlocked. But he had admitted that wasn’t true; he had access to the major roadway. He also admitted that he could have developed the property without access to the new road. Moreover, the Village’s attorney had testified that the original purposes of the 1990 easement had been fulfilled, and the Village had no foreseeable plans to use it again.
All but one of the Court’s seven justices agreed that the express language of the easement was not ambiguous, and the proposed development was not within the scope of the easement.
Although this decision is now almost twenty years old, it is a strong (and precedential) reminder that easements are limited (or not) by their descriptions, which we’ve regularly addressed. It’s also a reminder that property owners often flip to the other side of the fence and try to use something they negotiated for a contrary purpose.
The attorneys of Dalton & Tomich have decades of experience with real property issues, including tailoring and interpreting easements according to their intent and purpose. Call us today to discuss your easement issues.
[1] 473 Mich. 33 (2005).
[2] 473 Mich. at 41, quoting Delaney v. Pond, 350 Mich. 685 (1957).
[3] 473 Mich. at 44.
