An easement only necessary in the winter months? That’s what the Cheboygan Circuit Court found, only to be overturned by the Court of Appeals. It provided an example of how an easement by necessity does not run with the land; it runs with the necessity. Once that’s gone, so is the easement.
A single owner platted a subdivision in 1914 that resulted in dozens of lots along the eastern shore of Burt Lake, stacked from north to south. The property at the lake’s edge was flat, where cottages were built, with a steep bluff to the east that led to higher land. Access to and from these properties was difficult, as there were no public streets or alleys.
In 1934, the Circuit Court found the landowners had a right-of-way by necessity, as there was no other way to get on or off the properties besides a trail that had become the right-of-way. One of the owners of several parcels appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, which reversed as to the appealing owners and their properties only, holding even in 1936 that the necessity no longer existed.
Fast forward to the fall of 2007, when one of the property owners planted trees that blocked access to the trail that had been used as a right-of-way for decades. Some of the other owners sued, claiming an easement by prescription, acquiescence, or necessity. This time around, the Circuit Court found that the Supreme Court had left the non-appealing property owners with an easement by necessity. However, the Circuit Court decided it should be significantly reduced. There was no real necessity for the easement, except for emergency vehicles in winter.
The Court of Appeals, in Charles A. Murray Trust v Futrell, 840 N.W.2d 775, 303 Mich. App. 28 (2013), first analyzed what type of easement the Circuit Court had granted back in 1934. It dissected the possibility of an easement implied from a quasi-easement, which essentially is an implied easement based on prior use by the original owner, before splitting the parcels.
It decided that it was, in fact, an easement by necessity that the landowners who didn’t appeal obtained from the 1934 decree. The Court of Appeals then examined the degree of necessity required for an easement by necessity, holding that Michigan law required a finding of strict or absolute necessity. The easement ceases to exist when the necessity goes away. The easement sought in the 21st Century litigation was not absolutely necessary; it was more of a convenience.
So the landowners did not retain access to any of the easement, not even in winter months for emergency vehicles. To get and preserve an easement by necessity, there has to be a real necessity. Once the necessity is gone, so is the easement.
To discuss your legal rights and remedies regarding easements, contact the lawyers at Dalton & Tomich today.
