Smith v. Straughn

• Decision Date: 28 January 2020
• Docket Number: No. 345391,345391
• Citation: 952 N.W.2d 521,331 Mich.App. 209
• Parties: Ralph Steven SMITH and Sue Smith, Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants-Appellants, v. Joseph W. STRAUGHN, Individually and as Trustee of Joseph W. Straughn Revocable Trust, Defendant/Counterplaintiff/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, and Timothy Smith, Third-Party Defendant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

331 Mich.App. 209

952 N.W.2d 521

Ralph Steven SMITH and Sue Smith, Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants-Appellants,

v. Joseph W. STRAUGHN, Individually and as Trustee of Joseph W. Straughn Revocable Trust, Defendant/Counterplaintiff/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee,andTimothy Smith, Third-Party Defendant.

No. 345391

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted January 7, 2020, at Grand Rapids.

Decided January 28, 2020, 9:00 a.m.

Foster Swift Collins & Smith, PC, St. Joseph (by Stephen W. Smith ) for plaintiffs.

HassCaywood PC, Sturgis (by Michael J. Caywood ) for defendant.

Before: O'Brien, P.J., and Ronayne Krause and Gadola, JJ.

Ronayne Krause, J. Plaintiffs, Ralph Steven Smith and Sue Smith, appeal as of right the trial court's order and declaratory ruling regarding an easement that burdens the property of defendant, Joseph Straughn, individually and as Trustee of Joseph W. Straughn Revocable Trust. In relevant part, the trial court permitted defendant to maintain a fence and gate across the easement at defendant's property line, forbade either party from placing anything on the easement, and required both parties to maintain the portion of the easement, including trimming trees, on their respective properties. Only the matter of the gate is being appealed. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In 1978, plaintiffs and their family members formed a partnership to purchase property located off US-12 East in Niles, Michigan. In 1986, the partnership divided the property into five parcels, Parcels A, B, C, D, and E. Parcel E was the southernmost property located directly on US-12, and the other parcels were landlocked and located farther north of each subsequent parcel, with Parcel A being the northernmost property. The partnership created an easement across the easternmost 66 feet of Parcels E, D, and C, and the southern 87.91 feet of Parcel B.¹ Plaintiffs lived on Parcel E and shared the use of the easement and Parcels A and B with their family. Plaintiffs and their family created a 14-foot gravel roadbed extending north and south along the easement.

In November 2005, defendant purchased Parcel C, the parcel in the center of the properties, subject to the easement across the eastern 66 feet of Parcel C. In late July 2008, defendant experienced a break-in and theft at his house, and he requested plaintiffs’ consent to install a gate along the southern property line of Parcel C across the easement for security purposes. According to plaintiffs, they did not consent to defendant's proposed gate, but according to defendant, plaintiffs did not object to his proposal. Over the next year, defendant constructed a 7-foot tall and 400-foot wide wooden fence across the southern border of his property, including across the easement. The gate had two doors that rolled open sideways in opposite directions. The gate opening was 19½ feet wide when fully open and opened beyond the 14-foot-wide roadbed.

Beginning in 2016, plaintiffs raised concerns regarding defendant's use of the easement. Defendant parked vehicles and equipment on the easement, placed cement blocks and stones on the roadbed, damaged and scraped the roadbed, placed snow piles across the easement, placed caution tape and fiberglass rods along the western portion of the easement extending north along defendant's property, and installed cameras facing his gate. Plaintiffs and defendant testified that these interferences with the easement did not totally prevent plaintiffs from using the easement, except for one instance when snow piles covered the easement. According to plaintiffs, defendant left the gate closed, which required them to exit their vehicles to use the easement, and the gate was physically challenging for plaintiffs to open. However, defendant stated that he often observed plaintiffs and their son opening the gate without any difficulties. Additionally, the gate was always unlocked, and defendant told plaintiffs that if he ever did lock it, he would arrange for plaintiffs to have a key. According to plaintiffs’ son, defendant also offered to install an electric motor on the fence, but plaintiffs declined.²

Plaintiffs alleged that defendant's fence, gate, vehicles, and other items on the easement impeded the easement and prevented them from accessing Parcels A and B without obstruction or interference. Plaintiffs requested declaratory and injunctive relief declaring their right to full and unimpeded access and use of the easement and preventing defendant from obstructing or interfering with that right. Defendant filed a counterclaim and requested declaratory relief to determine the parties’ rights and obligations regarding the easement and to declare that his use of the easement, including his fence and gate, was consistent with the easement and did not unreasonably burden plaintiffs’ use of the easement. The trial court conducted a site visit, with the attorneys present, and personally determined that the gate was easy to move.

The trial court interpreted the language of the easement and concluded that its purpose was for ingress and egress and to access US-12. The trial court determined that the easement did not provide any restrictions or specify plaintiffs’ intent or plan to use the easement and to develop Parcels A and B. The trial court determined that defendant's gate permitted plaintiffs to use the gate for ingress and egress and did not unreasonably interfere with their use of the easement. The trial court also determined that it was not unreasonable to have the gate closed, if it did not deprive plaintiffs of the ability to use the easement, and that it was reasonable for the parties to jointly maintain the easement. The trial court prohibited both parties from placing vehicles or items on the easement.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW

This Court reviews de novo a trial court's ruling in a declaratory action. Toll Northville Ltd. v. Northville Twp. , 480 Mich. 6, 10, 743 N.W.2d 902 (2008). This Court also reviews de novo the proper interpretation of legal instruments, such as deeds or contracts. See In re Rudell Estate , 286 Mich. App. 391, 402-403, 780 N.W.2d 884 (2009). This Court reviews de novo equitable matters but gives deference to the trial court's determinations. Cantieny v. Friebe , 341 Mich. 143, 146, 67 N.W.2d 102 (1954). Thus, this Court reviews for clear error the trial court's factual determination of a party's rights under an easement. Blackhawk Dev. Corp. v. Dexter , 473 Mich. 33, 40, 700 N.W.2d 364 (2005). "A finding is clearly erroneous where, after reviewing the entire record, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Alan Custom Homes, Inc. v. Krol , 256 Mich. App. 505, 512, 667 N.W.2d 379 (2003). This Court is especially deferential to the trial court's superior ability "to judge of the relative credibility of witnesses[.]" McGonegal v. McGonegal , 46 Mich. 66, 67, 8 N.W. 724 (1881).

An easement is a limited property interest; it is the right to use the land burdened by the easement for a specific purpose. Dep't of Natural Resources v. Carmody-Lahti Real Estate, Inc. , 472 Mich. 359, 378-379, 699 N.W.2d 272 (2005). The land burdened by the easement is the servient estate, and the land benefited by the easement is the dominant estate. See D'Andrea v. AT & T Mich. , 289 Mich. App. 70, 73 n. 2, 795 N.W.2d 620 (2010). An easement holder's use of the easement is limited to the purposes for which the easement was granted and must impose "as little burden as possible to the fee owner of the land," but the easement holder nevertheless enjoys "all such rights as are incident or necessary to the reasonable and proper enjoyment of the easement." Blackhawk , 473 Mich. at 41-42, 700 N.W.2d 364 (quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Cantieny , 341 Mich. at 147, 67 N.W.2d 102 ; Harvey v. Crane , 85 Mich. 316, 325, 48 N.W. 582 (1891) ; Kirby v. Meyering Land Co. , 260 Mich. 156, 169, 244 N.W. 433 (1932). The necessity of an easement holder's conduct can be informed by the purpose and scope of the easement in addition to the easement holder's accustomed use of the easement. See Harvey , 85 Mich. at 318-319, 325, 48 N.W. 582.

A fee owner may use his or her land on a servient estate for any purpose not unreasonably inconsistent with the rights of the easement holder. Cantieny , 341 Mich. at 146-147, 67 N.W.2d 102 ; Harvey , 85 Mich. at 322, 48 N.W. 582 ; Kirby , 260 Mich. at 168-170, 244 N.W. 433. "What may be considered a proper and reasonable use by the owner of the fee, as distinguished from an unreasonable and improper use, as well as what may be necessary to [the easement holder's] use and enjoyment, are questions of fact to be determined by the trial court or jury." Harvey , 85 Mich. at 322-323, 48 N.W. 582. "Where the language of 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) ; see also Blackhawk , 473 Mich. at 42, 700 N.W.2d 364. The scope of an easement may only be determined by reference to extrinsic evidence if the text of the instrument is ambiguous. Id.

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs first argue that the trial court erroneously concluded that defendant had a right to install a fence and gate across the parties’ shared easement because the easement did not reserve such a right. Plaintiffs also argue that the trial court erroneously failed to consider plaintiffs’ intent and understanding of the easement at the time they created the easement. We disagree with both arguments.

A. FACIAL PROHIBITION OF A FENCE

As discussed, the fee owner's use of land on a servient estate is reviewed for reasonableness and whether that use is unreasonably inconsistent with the easement holder's rights. We cannot find clear error in the conclusion that security and deterrence against break-ins, trespassers, and theft are reasonable concerns that are reasonably addressed by the fence and gate....