Michael Kovacs v. Mark a Lesar
334570
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Plaintiff owns property in Albert Township; defendants have a 33-foot easement in plaintiff’s deed described for "ingress, egress and utilities."
- A prior consent judgment had already characterized the easement as for ingress, egress, and utilities.
- Defendants operate D & M Guns, a retail gun shop, from their residence beginning in 2012.
- Plaintiff sued for declaratory and injunctive relief in 2015, arguing the easement was intended for residential use and that commercial use and customer traffic overburdened the easement.
- Defendants argued the easement permits ingress and egress for any uses associated with their property, including business invitees.
- The trial court found the easement unambiguous (ingress/egress/utilities), permitted reasonable commercial use, and concluded the gun shop did not overburden the easement (averaging <4–5 cars/day). Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the easement permits commercial use | Easement was granted for residential purposes only; commercial operation is outside scope | Easement for ingress and egress permits access for any uses of the dominant estate, including business invitees | The easement language is unambiguous; ingress/egress allows reasonable business use |
| Whether defendants’ use overburdens the easement | Customer traffic and business activity materially overburden the easement and justify relief | Business operates limited hours with minimal traffic; increased users alone do not equal overburdening | On these facts (reasonable hours; ~4 cars/day; no heavy equipment), use does not overburden the easement |
| Proper standard of review for easement scope | N/A (factual challenge) | N/A | Factual findings reviewed for clear error; legal questions reviewed de novo |
| Whether court may impose restrictions despite plain language | Plaintiff sought restrictions to prevent commercial use | Defendants opposed restrictions; easement text governs | Because language is clear and unambiguous, court could not add restrictions; future relief remains possible if overburdening occurs |
Key Cases Cited
- Blackhawk Dev. Corp. v. Vill. of Dexter, 473 Mich 33 (Michigan Supreme Court) (extent of easement rights is a question of fact)
- Little v. Kin, 468 Mich 699 (Michigan Supreme Court) (plain easement language controls; ambiguous terms permit extrinsic evidence)
- Grinnell Bros. v. Brown, 205 Mich 134 (Michigan Supreme Court) (definitions and usage of ingress/egress in property law)
- Henkle v. Goldenson, 263 Mich 140 (Michigan Supreme Court) (increase in users of an unrestricted right-of-way is not necessarily an unlawful burden)
- Morse v. Colitti, 317 Mich App 526 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (mere increase in number of users did not overburden an easement)
- Tittiger v. Johnson, 103 Mich App 437 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (use of heavy machinery can overburden an easement)