PENROSE v. McCULLOUGH
862 N.W.2d 674
Mich. Ct. App.2014Background
- Lots 9, 10, 11 originally owned by Gleesons; lot 6 owned by McCulloughs. McCulloughs bought lot 11 from the Gleesons in May 2007.
- About a week after that sale, McCulloughs granted an "exclusive perpetual easement" across a 10-foot strip of lot 6 to the Gleesons, expressly stating it benefitted "any or all of the Lots" (9, 10, and 11) and that it "shall run with the land."
- The Gleesons’ easement was recorded in May 2007. In April 2008 McCulloughs deeded lot 11 to the Sanfords and expressly conveyed an easement over the same portion of lot 6 to the Sanfords.
- Plaintiff Penrose purchased lots 9 and 10 (and the recorded exclusive easement) from the Gleesons in December 2012. Penrose sued after the Sanfords used the easement and blocked his construction access.
- Trial court granted summary disposition for Penrose; Sanfords appealed claiming they held a valid easement and that laches/equities should protect their use. Appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Penrose's Argument | Sanfords' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the recorded easement is appurtenant and exclusive, benefiting lots 9/10 (and 11 as described) | The deed created an appurtenant, "exclusive" easement for lots 9 and 10 (and thus successors), so only those owners may use it | The Sanfords point to the deed to lot 11 conveying an easement to them in 2008 and argue their recorded grant gives them rights | Held for Penrose: deed language shows an appurtenant exclusive easement for the lots (benefiting 9 & 10); exclusivity precludes others including Sanfords |
| Whether McCulloughs could create an easement in favor of lot 11 when they already owned both dominant and servient estates | Penrose: any attempted easement attaching to lot 11 at creation failed because one cannot have an easement on one’s own land; the valid appurtenant easement attached to lots 9 & 10 | Sanfords: the later deed to them expressly granted an easement over lot 6 | Held: Even if deed language was ambiguous about lot 11, the attempt to create an easement in favor of lot 11 while McCulloughs owned both lots could not create a valid easement for lot 11 at that time; valid easement was in favor of lots 9 & 10 |
| Whether Sanfords’ later-recorded interest (2008) defeats Penrose’s earlier recorded easement (2007) under Michigan’s race-notice recording scheme | Penrose: Gleesons’ exclusive easement was recorded first (constructive notice), so subsequent purchasers with notice cannot take superior rights | Sanfords: they relied on the 2008 deed granting an easement to lot 11 and on equities | Held: Sanfords had constructive notice of the prior recorded exclusive easement; Penrose’s recorded priority prevails |
| Whether laches or equitable considerations bar enforcement of Penrose’s easement | Penrose: promptly enforced rights after purchase (sued within months) — laches not applicable | Sanfords: delay/equities should preserve their use | Held: Laches not applicable — short delay and no demonstrated prejudice to Sanfords |
Key Cases Cited
- Von Meding v. Strahl, 319 Mich. 598 (recognizes union of dominant and servient estates extinguishes easements)
- Dimoff v. Laboroff, 296 Mich. 325 (one cannot have an easement in one’s own land)
- Dep’t of Natural Resources v. Carmody-Lahti Real Estate, Inc., 472 Mich. 359 (distinguishes easement in gross and appurtenant; definition of easement in gross)
- Myers v. Spencer, 318 Mich. 155 (presumption favoring easement appurtenant when related to parcel)
- Charles A. Murray Trust v. Futrell, 303 Mich. App. 28 (easement "runs with the land" indicates appurtenant nature)
- Coventry Parkhomes Condo Ass’n v. Fed. Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n, 298 Mich. App. 252 (Michigan is a race-notice jurisdiction; recording priority rules)