Hwy. 7 Embers, Inc. v. Northwestern Nat. Bank
Decision Date | 24 June 1977 |
Docket Number | Nos. 46710,46711,s. 46710 |
Parties | HWY. 7 EMBERS, INC., Appellant, v. NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK and Charles Koehler, Executors of the Estate of G. F. Lohman, Respondents, Nella D. Lohman, et al., Respondents, Newcomb Brothers Nursery, Inc., Defendant. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. When an easement is created by express grant, its extent depends entirely upon the construction of the terms of that grant. Only when ambiguities exist may the circumstances surrounding the grant be considered. Here, the trial judge's conclusion that the easement was "clear and unambiguous" is fully warranted by the express terms of the conveyance.
2. The circumstances surrounding a conveyance may permit the inference of an implied easement, but this inference may be overcome by the terms of the contract itself. Here, the express terms of the conveyance do not permit the extension of the easement by implication.
3. A court in equity has the power to determine the fair extent of an easement when the parties are unable to agree, but such a premise is not applicable where, as here, a written description is capable of exact interpretation.
4. When a vendor represents to a vendee that the land sold will be served by an easement over reserved land of the vendor, the vendor is estopped to deny the existence of the easement although it is not mentioned in the conveyance, but where, as here, there is no evidence of such a representation, the terms of the written document control.
Affirmed.
Maslon, Kaplan, Edelman, Borman, Brand & McNulty and Hyman Edelman, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Taylor Law Firm and Elmer W. Foster, Minneapolis, for Lohman, et al.
Lewis E. Lohmann and Paul W. Lohmann, Minneapolis, for Lohman Heirs.
Heard before YETKA, SCOTT and WINTON, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.
This is an appeal from a judgment denying declaratory and injunctive relief and damages to plaintiff, Hwy. 7 Embers, Inc. (Embers). The matter at issue is the extent of an easement of view over property owned by G. F. Lohman 1 and defendant Nella Lohman (Lohmans) and leased by defendant Newcomb Brothers Nursery, Inc. (Newcomb). Trial was to the court, which held that defendants' interpretation of the easement was correct. Embers appeals from that decision.
The facts in this case are best understood by reference to the following diagram:
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
Initially, the Lohmans owned all of Tracts B, C, and D as shown above. To summarize a fairly complicated series of transactions, the Lohmans sold Tract D to the Phillips Petroleum Company (Phillips) as a location for a service station and Tract C to Embers as a location for a restaurant. It was thought by all parties at the time (1968) that Tract B would be condemned to permit construction of a major traffic interchange at State Highway No. 7 (Highway 7) and Monk Avenue. The warranty deed from the Lohmans to Embers included an easement agreement, the meaning of which forms the central dispute in this case.
The highway interchange has not yet been constructed (nor does the record show that it has been abandoned), leaving the Lohmans in continued possession of Tract B. Newcomb leased Tract B for its nursery business, but it is now bankrupt and has discontinued business on the Lohman property. The Lohmans wish to sell Tract B to buyers who intend to construct a new building on its eastern portion, thus restricting the view of Embers from the northeast on Highway 7. Embers contends that the easement agreement prohibits such buildings on all of Tract B, while the Lohmans take the position that only the western portion of Tract B is affected by the easement.
The following legal issues are presented:
(1) Does Embers possess an express easement of view over all of Tract B?
(2) Does Embers possess an implied easement of view over all of Tract B?
(3) Was it the equitable duty of the trial court to find a reasonable easement of view for Embers over all of Tract B?
(4) Are the Lohmans equitably estopped from claiming a right to build on the eastern part of Tract B?
1. The warranty deed conveying Tract C to Embers contains an easement agreement which provides in relevant part:
(Italics supplied.)
Embers also points to the earnest money contract between it and Phillips, the easement conditions of which were later assumed by the Lohmans. The easement provision states:
Embers contends that proper construction of these documents yields an express grant of an easement of view over all of Tract B. The Lohmans and the trial judge reached the conclusion that an express easement extended over only part of Tract B.
In Annotation, 142 A.L.R. 467, 468, it is stated: "It is universally assumed, without controversy, that easements of light, air, and view may be created by express grant." When an easement is by express grant, its extent depends entirely upon the construction of the terms of the grant. 28 C.J.S., Easements, § 78; Annotation, 142 A.L.R. 467, 469; Restatement, Property, § 482; 3 Powell, Real Property, § 415. Only when ambiguities exist may the circumstances surrounding the grant be considered. As the language of the grant becomes less precise, the circumstances of the grant grow in importance as an interpretive aid. Restatement, Property, § 483, Comments d and e; 3 Powell, Real Property, § 415.
The first part of the phrase refers to the large portion of Tract B immediately north of Tract C; the second part refers to the small portion of Tract B which extends slightly to the west of the larger area. No reference is made to that portion of Tract B lying immediately north of Tract D. Thus, the provisions of the easement agreement refer specifically to that part of Tract B lying west of the northerly extension of the boundary line between Tracts B and C.
Embers contends, however, that the following language in the easement agreement indicates an extension of the easement:
" * * * It is understood and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Myers v. Salin
...Pion v. Dwight, --- Mass.App. ---, --- - ---, Mass.App.Ct.Adv.Sh. (1981) 389, 394-395, 417 N.E.2d 20; Highway 7 Embers, Inc. v. Northwestern Natl. Bank, 256 N.W.2d 271, 275-276 (Minn.1977). The language of the covenants seems essentially undistinguishable, as to purpose and effect, from tha......
-
Three Putt, LLC v. City of Minnetonka, No. A08-1436 (Minn. App. 6/2/2009)
...The extent of an easement by grant is defined entirely by the construction of the terms of the grant. Highway 7 Embers Inc. v. Nw. Nat'l Bank, 256 N.W.2d 271, 275 (Minn. 1977). "[W]hen the language granting the easement is clear and unambiguous, the court's power to determine the extent of ......
-
Mitchell v. Chance
...Ranch Corp., 965 P.2d 1229, 1237-38 (Colo.1998); Anchors v. Manter, 714 A.2d 134, 140 (Me.1998); Highway 7 Embers, Inc. v. Northwestern Nat'l Bank, 256 N.W.2d 271, 277 (Minn.1977); Sacco v. Narragansett Elec. Co., 505 A.2d 1153, 1155-56 (R.I.1986); R.C.R., Inc. v. Rainbow Canyon, Inc., 978 ......
-
STATE BY WASH. WILDLIFE PRESERVATION v. State, 82-150
...an easement is by grant its extent depends entirely upon the construction of the terms of the grant. Highway 7 Embers, Inc. v. Northwestern National Bank, 256 N.W.2d 271 (Minn.1977). The process which creates the easement necessarily fixes its extent and therefore the extent of an easement ......
-
Saving the spirit of our places: a view on our built environment.
...(72.) Bosold v. Ban Con Inc., 392 N.W.2d 724, 726 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) (quoting Highway 7 Embers, Inc. v. Northwestern Nat'l Bank 256 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn. (73.) See Ramsey v. Lewis, 874 S.W.2d 320, 323 (Tex. Ct. App. 1994) (noting that the homeowners' evidence did not demonstrate "a reas......