Charles A. Murray Trust v. Futrell
303 Mich. App. 28
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Waubun Beach plat (34 lots) had a 1934 Cheboygan Circuit Court decree granting a reciprocal "right of way by necessity" over lots 1–34 for ingress/egress to public highways, based on landlock/necessity findings.
- The decree was appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court (Waubun Beach Ass’n v Wilson), which reversed only as to the MacClure lots (lots 4,5,7,8), concluding necessity over those lots had ceased. The Supreme Court treated the 1934 grant as an easement by necessity.
- In 2007–08 subsequent lot owners (Murray and Bearce plaintiffs) sued the Futrells (owners of lots 20–21) after the Futrells blocked North Wahbee Avenue. Plaintiffs sought declaratory/injunctive relief that the 1934 easement remained.
- Trial court consolidated cases: it extinguished the easement as to the Bearce lots (southern lots) but (mistakenly, per the Court of Appeals) preserved a limited winter emergency-vehicle easement for lots 9–19, while dismissing claims for lots 4–8.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals analyzed (1) whether the 1934 grant was an easement by necessity or a quasi-easement, (2) whether the proper standard is strict or reasonable necessity, and (3) whether strict necessity still existed for the currently affected lots.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nature of 1934 grant | Murray/Bearce: multiple implied easements (landlocked access, social use, waterworks) | Futrell: single easement by necessity limited to ingress/egress to public road | 1934 decree created an easement by necessity (not quasi-easements) |
| Standard of necessity for easement by necessity | Murray/Bearce (some cases cited): reasonable necessity suffices | Futrell: strict (absolute) necessity required per Michigan precedent | Strict necessity required under Michigan law |
| Whether Bearce lots retain easement | Bearce: 1934 easement remains appurtenant and not extinguished | Futrell: necessity has ceased because alternative public access exists | Easement by necessity extinguished as to Bearce lots — no strict necessity exists |
| Whether Murray lots retain easement (including limited winter/emergency access) | Murray: at least winter/emergency and perhaps general vehicular access over Futrells is necessary | Futrell: no strict necessity — each Murray lot has driveways to public road | No strict necessity for any Murray lots; trial court erred preserving a winter emergency-vehicle easement for lots 9–19; easement no longer exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Waubun Beach Ass’n v. Wilson, 274 Mich 598 (Mich. 1936) (interpreting 1934 decree as an easement by necessity and holding it ceases when necessity ends)
- Forge v. Smith, 458 Mich 198 (Mich. 1998) (confirming that an easement by necessity fails if property is not landlocked)
- Schmidt v. Eger, 94 Mich App 728 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980) (distinguishing easement by necessity from easement implied from quasi-easement)
- Goodman v. Brenner, 219 Mich 55 (Mich. 1922) (discussing necessity standard for ways of necessity)
- Bean v. Bean, 163 Mich 379 (Mich. 1910) (explaining that easements implied from quasi-easements are appurtenant and run with the land)