Little v. Kin
Decision Date | 09 July 2003 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 121037, Calendar No. 6. |
Citation | 468 Mich. 699,664 N.W.2d 749 |
Parties | Robert LITTLE and Barbara Little, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Steven KIN, Rosalyn Kin, Thomas Trivan, and Darlene Trivan, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Berry & Reynolds PC (by David W. Berry and Ronald E. Reynolds), Farmington Hills, MI, for the plaintiffs-appellants. Cox, Hodgman & Giarmarco, P.C. (by William H. Horton, Mark E. Wilson, and Kaveh Kashef), Troy, MI, for the defendants-appellees.
Law, Weathers & Richardson, P.C. (by Clifford H. Bloom), Grand Rapids, MI, for the Michigan Lake & Stream Associations, Inc.
We granted leave to appeal to consider the scope of defendants' easement "for access to and use of the riparian rights to Pine Lake." 467 Mich. 898, 654 N.W.2d 330 (2002). Having reviewed the issues involved, we agree with the judgment of the Court of Appeals.1
However, we write briefly to clarify the trial court's duties on remand.
First, the trial court must determine whether the easement contemplates the construction and maintenance of a dock by defendants. In answering this question, the trial court shall begin by examining the text of the easement. Where the language of a legal instrument is plain and unambiguous, it is to be enforced as written and no further inquiry is permitted. See, e.g., Gawrylak v. Cowie, 350 Mich. 679, 683, 86 N.W.2d 809 (1957). If the text of the easement is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence may be considered by the trial court in order to determine the scope of the easement.2
If the easement grants defendants the right to construct or maintain a dock, the trial court must determine whether the particular dock at issue is permissible under the law of easements. Under our well-established easement jurisprudence, the dominant estate may not make improvements to the servient estate if such improvements are unnecessary for the effective use of the easement or they unreasonably burden the servient tenement. Crew's Die Casting Corp. v. Davidow, 369 Mich. 541, 120 N.W.2d 238 (1963); Unverzagt v. Miller, 306 Mich. 260, 265, 10 N.W.2d 849 (1943); Mumrow v. Riddle, 67 Mich.App. 693, 700, 242 N.W.2d 489 (1976). Accordingly, if the trial court concludes that the easement grants defendants the right to construct or maintain a dock, it must then determine (1) whether the dock is necessary for defendants' effective use of their easement and (2) whether the dock unreasonably burdens plaintiffs' servient estate.
To the extent consistent with this opinion, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anglers of Ausable v. Dept. of Environmental Quality
...marks and citation omitted). Not surprisingly, these purposes are determined by the text of the easement. Little v. Kin, 468 Mich. 699, 700, 664 N.W.2d 749 (2003) (Little II). "Where the language of a legal instrument is plain and unambiguous, it is to be enforced as written and no further ......
-
Tomecek v. Bavas
...for the trial court, which we review for clear error." Little v. Kin, 249 Mich.App. 502, 507, 644 N.W.2d 375 (2002), aff'd 468 Mich. 699, 664 N.W.2d 749 (2003), citing Dobie v. Morrison, 227 Mich. App. 536, 541-542, 575 N.W.2d 817 (1998). "A finding is clearly erroneous where, although ther......
-
Morse v. Colitti
...a legal instrument is plain and unambiguous, it is to be enforced as written, and no further inquiry is permitted. Little v. Kin, 468 Mich. 699, 700, 664 N.W.2d 749 (2003). The plat "dedicated" the Park to "the use of the present and future lot owners." Because language dedicating land for ......
-
Blackhawk Dev. Corp. v. Village of Dexter
...are unnecessary for the effective use of the easement or they unreasonably burden the servient tenement." Little v. Kin, 468 Mich. 699, 701, 664 N.W.2d 749 (2003), citing Crew's Die Casting Corp. v. Davidow, 369 Mich. 541, 120 N.W.2d 238 (1963), Unverzagt, supra at 265, 10 N.W.2d 849, and M......