In a recent unpublished opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals dealt with a case in which an express easement was used for transporting heavy drilling equipment to construct an oil well in a rural, northern Michigan township. In Savoy Energy v Leon Beasinger, the Appeals Court found the trial court’s order limiting the time and manner in which one party could use the easement “proper in spirit, but excessive in implementation” and therefore affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. Savoy Energy LP v. Leon Beasinger et al, Docket No. 336392 (May 10, 2018).
https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/court-of-appeals-unpublished/2018/336392.html
Plaintiff Savoy Energy LP appealed the trial court’s order that defined restrictions upon Savoy’s use of an express easement, known as Birch Valley Trail, that burdens property owned by Defendants. Specifically, the trial court found that it would be proper to require Savoy to repair the road, and it enjoined Savoy “from using commercial vehicles on Birch Valley Trail” and restricted any traffic to the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. except in emergencies.
On appeal, Savoy contended that the easement, which permits use for “ingress and egress” to the landlocked parcel that it leases from Defendants, essentially allows unrestricted use of the easement. In other words, Savoy argued that it should be free to use the easement 24/7 and bring any equipment it wants, including commercial vehicles and heavy machinery. The Appeals Court disagreed with Savoy’s argument that the easement allowed unrestricted use, but found that the trial court had gone too far in limiting the terms of the easement.
The Appeals Court found that the true dispute over the easement was not whether Savoy had a right to enter and leave the property, but how obnoxiously it may go about entering and exiting the property, the extent to which it may alter the land under the easement in the process of doing so, and the extent to which entering and leaving the property may incidentally entail bringing anything else in or out of the property.
In deciding the scope of the easement, the Appeals Court noted that “[e]quity demands fairness to all parties.” The Appeals Court explained that it was unreasonable for Savoy to argue that the easement allowed it to do absolutely anything, while it was equally unreasonable for the Defendants to disallow Savoy from using the easement for the same purposes, such as for use bycommercial vehicles, as prior easement holders.
The Appeals Court concluded the only available objective resolution was to evaluate the extent to which the easement holder’s desired use of the easement is intrinsically and necessarily compatible with the physical road. The historical use of the road showed that it required some regular maintenance and supported some heavy commercial vehicular traffic.
Therefore, the Appeals Court rejected Savoy’s contention that the trial court erred in finding that Savoy had overburdened the easement, but agreed that the trial court’s remedy went beyond equitably balancing reasonable needs and expectations and into impermissibly rewriting the easement. The trial court erred in precluding Savoy entirely from placing any heavy commercial traffic on Birch Valley Trail except in emergencies. All, or nearly all, of the owners served by Birch Valley Trail, or their predecessors, had made some kind of use of heavy commercial vehicles on the easement, and equity cannot permit Savoy to be restricted in the use if the easement more than any other easement holder.
The Appeals Court vacated in part the trial court’s order as to the specific rules it places on Savoy’s use of the easement, and remanded for the trial court to consider a remedy that more balances the equities outlined in their opinion.
This article was written by Ryan Hansen, Law Clerk.
