Penrose v. McCullough
| Citation | 308 Mich.App. 145,862 N.W.2d 674 |
| Decision Date | 18 November 2014 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 316435. |
| Parties | PENROSE v. McCULLOUGH. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
George S. Dunn, South Haven, for Anthony C. Penrose.
Kreis, Enderle, Hudgins & Borsos, P.C., Kalamazoo (by Stephen J. Hessen and Jeffrey D. Swenarton ), for Todd A. and Amy S. Sanford.
Before: BOONSTRA, P.J., and DONOFRIO and GLEICHER, JJ.
Defendants Todd Sanford and Amy Sanford appeal as of right an order granting summary disposition in favor of plaintiff, Anthony Penrose, in this property easement dispute. Because plaintiff possessed an exclusive easement over the property in question, the Sanfords' later acquisition of an easement over that same property was ineffective, and we affirm.
This case arises out of a dispute over real property located in the Monroe Park Subdivision, in the city of South Haven. Lots 9, 10, and 11 were originally owned by William and Susan Gleeson. The Gleesons sold Lot 11 to defendants Frank and Linda McCullough, who already owned Lot 6. The McCulloughs, in turn, granted the Gleesons an “exclusive” easement over a portion of their Lot 6. Even though the easement was granted after the Gleesons transferred their interest in Lot 11 to the McCulloughs, the easement document stated that the easement was being granted to the Gleesons as “title holder to Lots 9, 10, and 11.”
The McCulloughs subsequently sold Lot 11 to the Sanfords and included an easement over Lot 6, covering the same area as noted in the easement granted to the Gleesons. Plaintiff, Anthony Penrose, purchased Lots 9 and 10 from the Gleesons and is their successor in interest to those parcels.
Plaintiff filed suit, alleging that he had an exclusive right to the easement, which precluded the Sanfords from using it. The Sanfords answered and asserted that they were entitled to rely on a valid easement over Lot 6. Plaintiff moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), contending that when the McCulloughs sold Lot 11 to the Sanfords, the McCulloughs could not transfer an easement over Lot 6. The Sanfords countered by affirmatively moving for summary disposition in their favor under MCR 2.116(I)(2), contending that plaintiff's arguments ignored the plain language of the easement over Lot 6 to Lot 11. The trial court agreed with plaintiff and granted summary disposition in his favor.
“This Court reviews de novo a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition.” Anzaldua v. Neogen Corp., 292 Mich.App. 626, 629, 808 N.W.2d 804 (2011). A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of the complaint. Corley v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 470 Mich. 274, 278, 681 N.W.2d 342 (2004). The motion is properly granted if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. McCoig Materials, LLC v. Galui Constr., Inc., 295 Mich.App. 684, 693, 818 N.W.2d 410 (2012).
Furthermore, because deeds are contracts, the interpretation of their language is an issue of law, which this Court reviews de novo. In re Rudell Estate, 286 Mich.App. 391, 402–403, 780 N.W.2d 884 (2009).
The Sanfords argue that the trial court erred by granting plaintiff's motion for summary disposition because the Sanfords satisfied their burden by producing documentary evidence showing that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the parties' respective rights over the easement parcel. Furthermore, the Sanfords maintain that the trial court also erred when it denied their request for summary disposition because their evidence affirmatively proved that they had permanent easement rights over it.
“An easement is the right to use the land of another for a specified purpose.” Schadewald v. Brulé, 225 Mich.App. 26, 35, 570 N.W.2d 788 (1997). “ ‘[A]n easement may be created by express grant, by reservation or exception, or by covenant or agreement.’ ” Rossow v. Brentwood Farms Dev., Inc., 251 Mich.App. 652, 661, 651 N.W.2d 458 (2002), quoting State Hwy. Comm. v. Canvasser Bros. Bldg. Co., 61 Mich.App. 176, 181, 232 N.W.2d 351 (1975). Michigan courts recognize two types of easements: easements appurtenant and easements in gross. See Collins v. Stewart, 302 Mich. 1, 4, 4 N.W.2d 446 (1942). An appurtenant easement attaches to the land and is incapable of existence apart from the land to which it is annexed. Schadewald, 225 Mich.App. at 35, 570 N.W.2d 788. “An easement in gross is one ‘benefiting a particular person and not a particular piece of land.’ ” Dep't. of Natural Resources v. Carmody–Lahti Real Estate, Inc., 472 Mich. 359, 379 n. 41, 699 N.W.2d 272 (2005), quoting Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed.). Michigan law favors easements appurtenant over easements in gross, and “an easement will never be presumed to be a mere personal right where it can fairly be construed to be appurtenant to some other estate.” von Meding v. Strahl, 319 Mich. 598, 610, 30 N.W.2d 363 (1948). In other words, if the easement in question relates in some way to a particular parcel of property, it is nearly always deemed appurtenant. Myers v. Spencer, 318 Mich. 155, 162, 27 N.W.2d 672 (1947).
Initially, the Gleesons owned Lots 9, 10, and 11, and the McCulloughs owned Lot 6. On May 9, 2007, the McCulloughs purchased Lot 11 from the Gleesons. Approximately a week after Lot 11 was transferred to the McCulloughs, the McCulloughs granted an easement over Lot 6 in favor of the Gleesons. This deed stated, in pertinent part:
It is clear that even if Michigan did not strongly favor easements appurtenant over easements in gross, the easement here is appurtenant. The deed establishes that the grantee's use of the servient estate is tied to the land and is for the express benefit of “any or all of the Lots.” Furthermore, the deed recognizes that the easement will “run with the land,” which is a trait of an easement appurtenant. Charles A. Murray Trust v. Futrell, 303 Mich.App. 28, 42, 840 N.W.2d 775 (2013).
The trial court ruled that as a matter of law no easement was created with Lot 11 as the dominant estate. Even assuming that the McCulloughs intended to create an easement with Lot 11 being the dominant estate,1 we agree with the trial court because when the easement was granted on May 15, 2007, the McCulloughs already owned both Lot 6 and Lot 11.2 It is well established that “ ‘[o]ne cannot have an easement in one's own land.’ ” von Meding, 319 Mich. at 605, 30 N.W.2d 363, quoting Dimoff v. Laboroff, 296 Mich. 325, 328, 296 N.W. 275 (1941). This is because “ ‘[t]he union of dominant and servient estates in the same owners extinguishes prior easements.’ ” von Meding, 319 Mich. at 605, 30 N.W.2d 363, quoting Dimoff, 296 Mich. at 328, 296 N.W. 275. Therefore, any attempt by the McCulloughs to create an easement with Lot 11 being the dominant estate and Lot 6 being the servient estate ultimately failed as a matter of law once they owned both lots. But there is no question that the easement was successfully created with respect to Lots 9 and 10 being the dominant estates. The two deeds for the conveyance of Lot 11 and the granting of the easement were later recorded on the same day—June 5, 2007.
Then, in April 2008, the McCulloughs conveyed Lot 11 and an easement over Lot 6 to the Sanfords. The deed specified that interest in two different “parcels” were being conveyed:
The fact that an easement was expressly granted is significant. While easements appurtenant need not be mentioned in deeds in order to be transferred when a dominant estate is transferred, Myers, 318 Mich. at 166, 27 N.W.2d 672, as discussed earlier, no easement appurtenant attached to Lot 11 previously. So, the express grant in this deed is the first time that the easement purportedly attached to Lot 11. Thus, on its face, the Sanfords were given an easement over Lot 6 in April 2008.
Then, in December 2012, the Gleesons conveyed their interest in Lots 9 and 10, which included the easement over Lot 6, to plaintiff.
Plaintiff argues, as the trial court concluded, that because his easement was “exclusive,” the McCulloughs were precluded from allowing anyone else to use the same easement. The May 2007 deed, which created the easement initially, conveyed “an exclusive perpetual easement” in favor of the Gleesons (the owners of Lots 9 and 10 at the time). (Emphasis added.)
In determining the scope of an “exclusive easement,” we find the Idaho Supreme Court's discussion in Latham v. Garner, 105 Idaho 854, 856, 673 P.2d 1048 (1983), helpful.
We begin with the observation that an exclusive easement is an unusual interest in land; it has been said to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beggs v. Freed
...estate. This Court defined the term "exclusive easement" in Penrose v McCullough, 308 Mich.App. 145, 151-152; 862 N.W.2d 674 (2014). In Penrose, this affirmed that a landowner, having granted an exclusive easement to one party, could not subsequently grant an easement over the same parcel t......
- Wolf v. Mahar
-
Byrne v. Grandfield
... ... easement to be appurtenant to those lands. Id .; see ... also Penrose v McCullough , 308 Mich.App. 145, 148; ... 862 N.W.2d 674 (2014) (stating that, if the easement in ... question relates in some way to a ... ...
-
Lapinske v. City of Grand Haven
... ... Bloomfield Ests. Improvement Ass'n, Inc. v. City of ... Birmingham, 737 N.W.2d 670, 674-75 (Mich. 2007); ... Penrose v. McCullough, 862 N.W.2d 674, 677 (Mich ... Ct. App. 2014) ("[B]ecause deeds are contracts, the ... interpretation of their language ... ...