Linda S Manley v. Sue Pikulski
327510
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 6, 2016Background
- In 1959 multiple identical easement agreements granted certain lot owners pedestrian access across Outlot A to Wampler’s Lake and limited mooring rights; the grantors retained the right to designate the path of access.
- The parties litigated earlier and entered a 1991 stipulated order altering/clarifying some easement terms (walkway limits, beach access limits, boat mooring on west side facing “easterly”).
- In 2013 plaintiffs sued defendants (current owners of the servient estate) alleging substantial interference with easement use (e.g., breakwall, garden fence, surveillance, restricting pathway); defendants counterclaimed alleging plaintiffs exceeded easement rights.
- After a bench trial the trial court: (1) ordered removal of a concrete breakwall at the north end of Outlot A, (2) ordered plaintiffs to construct a minimum 5-foot walkway along the easternmost side of Outlot A (plaintiffs to pay), and (3) upheld the 1991 order’s boat-mooring rule; it held the 1991 order modified the 1959 easement in relevant respects.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed all rulings but remanded solely to direct the trial court to set a maximum width for the required pathway to end further disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Removal of concrete breakwall | Breakwall unreasonably interferes with beach access and altered beachfront; removal necessary to restore easement use | Breakwall was an improvement to prevent erosion and did not eliminate beach; defendants had right to protect their shore | Court affirmed removal—breakwall unreasonably interfered with easement holders’ beach use; injunction appropriate |
| Walkway construction (minimum width and enforcement) | Constructed walkway (≥5 ft) necessary for safe, practical easement use; defendants’ demarcation was impracticable | Defendants may designate path; their narrow boundary (~41–42 in) complies with easement; court should not order construction | Court upheld order to build walkway but remanded to specify a maximum width (minimum 5 ft affirmed) |
| Use of easement by guests | 1991 order contemplates non-easement users using easement “through” easement holders (e.g., children/guests) | 1959 easement limited use to grantees, owners, or occupiers (tenants in possession); guests not permitted | Court held 1991 order clarified and effectively allowed use “through” easement holders; guests permitted under the 1991 terms |
| Boat-mooring direction | 1991 order allows boats moored on west side facing easterly; plaintiffs mooring due east complies | Defendants argue “easterly” does not include due east or that arrangement unduly interferes with their view/use | Court interpreted “easterly” to include due east and enforced the 1991 order as written; declined to modify it |
| Validity of 1991 order under zoning anti-"funneling" rule | 1991 order did not expand nonconforming use; defendants cannot undo a stipulated order they agreed to; equitable defenses apply | 1991 order expanded plaintiffs’ use in ways that violate the township anti-funneling ordinance and thus is void/unenforceable | Court rejected defendants’ challenge: (1) defendants participated in and are estopped from attacking the stipulation; (2) no clear expansion of nonconforming use shown; zoning challenge denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Blackhawk Dev. Corp v. Village of Dexter, 473 Mich 33 (ease of interpreting/defining easement scope; rights incident to easement)
- Kirby v. Meyering Land Co., 260 Mich 156 (injunction appropriate against permanent structure obstructing easement)
- Schadewald v. Brule, 225 Mich App 26 (once granted, an easement cannot be unilaterally modified by servient owner)
- Bowen v. Buck & Fur Hunting Club, 217 Mich App 191 (easement is a right to use another’s land for a specific purpose)
- Little v. Kin, 468 Mich 699 (where instrument language is plain, it is enforced as written)