952 N.W.2d 521
Mich. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiffs (Ralph and Sue Smith) own Parcels A–B (landlocked); defendant Straughn owns Parcel C; an easement runs over the east 66 feet of Parcels C, D, E (and part of B) for ingress and egress to US‑12.
- Plaintiffs and family historically used a roughly 14‑foot gravel roadbed within the 66‑foot easement.
- In 2008 Straughn built a 7‑ft tall, ~400‑ft fence along Parcel C’s southern boundary with a two‑panel sliding gate that opens to ~19.5 ft (gate unlocked and often left open); plaintiffs allege it impedes access.
- Trial court inspected the site, found the gate easy to open, prohibited placing items on the easement, required joint maintenance, and allowed the fence/gate so long as it did not unreasonably interfere.
- On appeal plaintiffs challenged only the gate; the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the gate was not an unreasonable obstruction to the easement and that the trial court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the servient‑owner may install a fence/gate across the easement absent an express reservation | Smiths: easement contains no reservation; gates are per se impermissible (esp. under Cantieny) | Straughn: easement allows ingress/egress only; security gate was reasonable, unlocked, easily opened, and did not materially impede use | Gate permitted; court found gate reasonably necessary for security, unlocked/easily opened, and did not unreasonably interfere; affirmed |
| Whether extrinsic evidence of the grantors’ intent (to develop a wider road) alters the easement scope | Smiths: silence about gates is ambiguous; original parties intended a wider/two‑lane road, so gates should be barred | Straughn: instrument unambiguously grants ingress/egress; no evidence a 19.5‑ft opening would preclude planned development | Court treated instrument as unambiguous; even assuming ambiguity, record lacked proof gate would frustrate intended use; trial court did not clearly err; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Cantieny v. Friebe, 341 Mich 143 (1954) (equity will bar gates erected in bad faith or that unreasonably harm easement holders)
- Harvey v. Crane, 85 Mich 316 (1891) (fee owner may use servient land so long as use is not inconsistent with easement rights)
- Blackhawk Dev. Corp. v. Dexter, 473 Mich 33 (2005) (scope of easement limits holder’s rights; holder entitled to reasonable enjoyment)
- Little v. Kin, 468 Mich 699 (2003) (plain, unambiguous instrument language controls; extrinsic evidence not considered)
- Kirby v. Meyering Land Co., 260 Mich 156 (1932) (reasonableness of servient‑owner uses judged against easement holder’s rights)
- Berkey & Gay Furniture Co. v. Valley City Milling Co., 194 Mich 234 (1916) (easement width may be necessary feature of use in certain circumstances)
- Three Lakes Ass’n v. Kessler, 91 Mich App 371 (1979) (court may fashion equitable remedies to address easement disputes)
- Toll Northville Ltd. v. Northville, 480 Mich 6 (2008) (de novo review of declaratory judgments)
- Dep’t of Natural Resources v. Carmody‑Lahti Real Estate, Inc., 472 Mich 359 (2005) (easement is a limited property interest; servient/dominant estate concepts)