Parcel of Land Located on Geneva Lake, Town of Linn, Walworth County, Matter of, 91-0140
| Decision Date | 23 October 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-0140,91-0140 |
| Citation | 165 Wis.2d 235,477 N.W.2d 333 |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re the Matter of a PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED ON GENEVA LAKE, TOWN OF LINN, WALWORTH COUNTY, Wi. Lou KREPEL and Linda Krepel, his wife, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Esther DARNELL, a single person, Albert Steffen and Shirley Steffen, his wife, and Susie Tschurtz, a single person, Respondents-Respondents, William Snellgrove and Marjorie Snellgrove, his wife, G. Jawad, marital status unknown, and John Palmer and Carol Palmer, his wife, Respondents. |
Cheryl A. Mick of Gray & Mick of Lake Geneva, for defendants-appellants.
David Allen Rasmussen of Darnell and Tschurtz, Walworth, for plaintiff-respondent.
Before NETTESHEIM, P.J., and BROWN and ANDERSON, JJ.
In this property rights case, the circuit court dismissed at summary judgment Lou and Linda Krepel's action for declaration of their claimed easement/access rights in property owned by Esther Darnell on Geneva Lake in Walworth county. The court dismissed the action because the Krepels based their easement claim upon conveyances outside the chain of title to their property. The circuit court also denied the Krepels' motion for reconsideration.
We conclude that the Krepels' easement claim does appear in their chain of title. Alternatively, we conclude that the Krepels' right to maintain this action is not governed by the chain of title to their property. Therefore, we reverse the orders and remand for further proceedings.
The Krepels own one of seven properties along Shadow Lane, a roadway which is bounded by Geneva Lake to the east and South Shore Drive to the west in the Town of Linn, Walworth county. The seven lots were originally part of a single, long, rectangular tract of land which was owned in fee by a husband and wife, Jerome and Emma Ingalls. The seven lots were created as the original tract was divided and the lots then sold at various times between 1922 and 1959. Of these seven properties, only one--Lot 6, a parcel now owned by respondent Darnell--fronts on Geneva Lake. The remaining six lots are off the water.
Although we ultimately decide this case on basic principles governing the law of easements, we, at the admitted risk of confusion, find it necessary to recount in some detail the sequence of historical transactions germane to this case. For convenience, we will refer to the lots by the last digits of their tax parcel numbers.
Jerome and Emma Ingalls owned a rectangular parcel of land lying adjacent to Geneva Lake. In 1922, the Ingalls carved out from their land an off-water parcel, Lot 6A, and conveyed it to their daughter, Edna Fassbinder. This lot is now owned by the Krepels, the petitioners-appellants in this declaratory action. This deed contains no language creating or granting an easement.
In 1926, the Ingalls created and conveyed another parcel, Lot 5, to Walter and Nellie Snell. This deed, however, contained a grant of easement to the Snells and their "successors and assigns" for purposes of access to Geneva Lake. This grant was expressed as "a covenant running with the land being a right appurtenant to the land herein conveyed...."
Thereafter, Jerome Ingalls died and, pursuant to his will and the 1928 final judgment in the estate proceedings, Jerome's interest in the remaining property was awarded to his wife Emma and his daughter Edna Fassbinder, who already owned Lot 6A pursuant to the 1922 transaction we have already described.
In 1929, Emma and Edna executed mutual conveyances to each other concerning this inherited property. 1 By these reciprocal transactions, Edna and Emma created Lot 4 and Edna deeded her interest in Lot 4 to Emma. In return, Emma deeded her interest in the inherited parcel to Edna. This conveyance contained the following easement language which is important to this case:
As part consideration for the execution of this deed, it is covenanted and agreed that the grantee, her heirs, successors and assigns, shall receive and exercise certain rights which it is agreed are appurtenant to the premises herein conveyed, which rights shall consist of an unrestricted use in common with other lot owners in the former Jerome Ingalls estate of a parcel of lake frontage constituting a tract One Hundred (100) feet in width East and West and varying in its North and South measurement from Ninety (90) feet on the East to Seventy (70) feet on the West. Said tract of lake frontage is to be kept free and clear of all buildings or other obstructions of any kind and is to be used solely for park, beach and docking purposes by purchasers of lots in the Jerome Ingalls estate, their successors and assigns. [Emphasis added.]
Thus, following this transaction, Emma owned Lot 4, the Snells owned Lot 5, and Edna owned Lot 6A (the Krepels' present lot) plus the remainder of the original parcel. Also, following this transaction, the inherited parcel was burdened with an easement.
In 1950, Edna conveyed Lot 6A to Harry and Frances Banks by warranty deed. This deed is silent as to any easement. However, in 1952, Edna executed a corrective deed to the Bankses, "reconveying" Lot 6A. By this conveyance Edna also granted a "personal easement" to use her lakefront property to the Bankses and "their heirs so long as the [Bankses] or their heirs personally own" Lot 6A. Also important to this case is that this easement was given to "use in common with other lot owners in the former Jerome Ingalls estate...." This easement carried the same legal description as that described in the 1929 conveyance from Edna to Emma. 2
In 1964, Edna executed another conveyance important to this case--a "corrective" deed to Helen Burke, the heir of the original owner of Lot 5, Walter Snell. The correction is not germane to this case. However, by this deed Edna again granted to the "other lot owners in the former Jerome Ingalls estate" exactly the same easement in exactly the same words which she had previously created and granted to the "other lot owners in the former Jerome Ingalls estate" in her 1929 conveyance of Lot 4 to her mother Emma.
The Bankses subsequently sold Lot 6A to Margaret and James Fletcher. Following James' death, Margaret sold Lot 6A to the Krepels.
Over the years, some of the various parcels referred to above were further conveyed to subsequent purchasers. In addition, Edna created and sold off other lots from the original parcel. Some of these parcels also were conveyed to subsequent successors in interest. Although we do not specifically recount these transactions, we do note that certain of these conveyances expressly included or referenced the easement granted in the 1929 conveyance from Edna to Emma. Others did not.
At the time of her death, Edna owned the last remaining parcel, Lot 6, the riparian property adjoining Geneva Lake. Esther Darnell inherited this parcel from Edna's estate. This parcel is the object of the Krepels' claimed easement and the subject of this declaratory action.
Before addressing the appellate issue, we summarize the foregoing history. The only reference to the Krepels' claimed easement right in the chain of title to their property, Lot 6A, is in the 1952 deed wherein Edna granted the Bankses a personal easement to "use in common with other lot owners in the former Jerome Ingalls estate ...." The Krepels' claimed easement right, however, does appear in conveyances outside their chain of title to Lot 6A: (1) in the 1929 conveyance from Emma to Edna creating Lot 4; and (2) in the 1964 corrective deed from Edna to Helen Burke concerning Lot 5. Although neither the Krepels, nor their predecessors in interest, were direct parties to these transactions, these conveyances specifically designated the "lot owners in the former Jerome Ingalls estate" as the beneficiaries of the easements granted therein. In addition, these easements were occasionally referenced in other conveyances to which the Krepels and their predecessors in interest were not privy. The issue on appeal is whether this history permits the Krepels to pursue their claim.
We stress that on appeal we address only the narrow grounds on which the trial court granted summary judgment to Darnell and dismissed the Krepels' action. The court ruled that the Krepels' chain of title to their property, Lot 6A, must include their easement claim. Because it did not, the court dismissed the Krepels' action. 3
Our first basis for reversal is direct and succinct. The trial court erred in its factual determination that the Krepels' easement claim lies outside the chain of title to their property, Lot 6A. The Krepels' claimed easement is referenced in the 1952 corrective deed from Edna Fassbinder to the Bankses. This deed concerns Lot 6A, the very lot which the Krepels now own. As such, the easement appears in the Krepels chain of title. The trial court's finding to the contrary is clearly erroneous. Section 805.17(2), Stats. On this narrow ground, we reverse. We make no judgment as to whether this conveyance served to create an easement running to the Krepels. The trial court did not advance to this question and we do not take it upon ourselves to prematurely do so.
Our second, and alternative, basis for reversal is more involved and complex. We disagree with the trial court's legal conclusion that the Krepels' easement claim must appear in their chain of title. Here again, we make no judgment as to whether those conveyances outside the Krepels' chain of title served to create an easement running to the Krepels. Again, the trial court did not advance to these questions and, again, nor do we. We proceed now to address this second basis for reversal at some length.
In their original one-count complaint, the Krepels sought a declaration of rights in Darnell's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Akg Real Estate, LLC v. Kosterman
... ... servitude) is an interest that encumbers the land of another. McCormick v. Schubring, 2003 WI ... easements across part of an 80-acre parcel of land (the Servient Estate), which partially ... of vacant land along Highway 31 in Racine County. In August of 1960 Louis and Angeline deeded the ... DOT would not consent to a public road located along the Kostermans' easements, AKG altered its ... moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Wis. Stat. § 802.08(2). Resolution of ... ...
-
Schwab v. Timmons
... ... gain access to their landlocked parcels located in Door County. The circuit court, as affirmed ... 993 (1904); [224 Wis.2d 32] Northern Pine Land Co. v. Bigelow, 84 Wis. 157, 162, 54 N.W. 496 ... McCormick owns the northernmost parcel and the Schwabs own two adjacent parcels directly ... Because their properties are between the lake and the bluff, the petitioners claim their only ... M & I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Town of Somers, 141 Wis.2d 271, 285 n. 9, 414 N.W.2d ... moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Grams v. Boss, 97 Wis.2d 332, 338-39, ... ...
-
Cmty. Credit Union v. Amerititle & Abstract, Inc.
... ... a judgment of the circuit court for Forest County: Leon D. Stenz, Judge. Affirmed.Before HOOVER, ... denied access by adjacent landowners to a parcel it had foreclosed upon. Against AmeriTitle, ... moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Wis. Stat. 802.08. We address Community ... flowage and sand removal rights to adjacent land. Borek, 328 Wis.2d 613, 4, 785 N.W.2d 615. When ... ...
-
Gojmerac v. Mahn, 01-0825.
... ... Vacant land bordered the addition on the north and west ... Block Two, located east and north of the public road, contained ... See Union Falls Power Co. v. Marinette County, 238 Wis. 134, 138, 298 N.W. 598 (1941) ... or occupancy of a particular unit or parcel of land. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF PROPERTY: ... In re Land on Geneva Lake, 165 Wis. 2d 235, 245, 477 N.W.2d 333 (Ct ... matter of law, the owners of Lot 2 of Block One and Lot ... ...