In Peggy and Sharon Rose Zlatkin v. Carol and Lawrence Schweihofer, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued September 10, 2019 (Docket No. 345610), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that an implied easement could not be considered reasonably necessary just because it was more convenient for the property owners.
In 1994, Robyn and Jaqueline Huber purchased a 197-parcel of land in Gladwin County, Michigan. The parcel was enclosed by Dutcher Road on its northern boundary and Butman Road on its eastern boundary. Hayfields composed the majority of the estate, and a single home sat on the northern half of the property. North of the house was a wooded, marshy area and a steep hill.
On March 18, 2015, Robyn Huber had a 10-acre parcel on the estate surveyed. The 10-acre parcel contained a trail that led from Dutcher Road to certain hayfields. In addition to delineating the boundaries of the 10-acre parcel, the survey listed existing markers and stated that the parcel was subject to “restrictions, reservations, easements, rights-of-way, zoning governmental regulations and matters visible, if any, upon or affecting said lands.”
On April 17, 2015, Robyn Huber sold the 10-acre parcel to Defendant via quitclaim deed. The deed described the property as “Containing 10.11 acres and being subject to restrictions, reservations, easements, rights-of-way, zoning and regulations.” Later, on December 29, 2015, Defendant conveyed the parcel to herself and her husband, by way of quitclaim deed. Like the original, this deed stated that the property was subject to easements. On May 13. 2015, Robin Huber sold the remaining 187 acres to Plaintiffs on a land contract.
On October 5, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment acknowledging that they held an easement over the trail. Plaintiffs argued that the Hubers expressly reserved the trail as an easement in Defendant’s quitclaim deed, and that this intent was made clear by the survey. Alternatively, Plaintiffs claimed that the Hubers created an easement appurtenant through Defendant’s quitclaim deed, since the trail was the most optimal way to access the hayfields. The trial court concluded that the Hubers did not expressly reserve an easement in the deed to Defendant nor create an easement by implication through the severance of the estate.
The Michigan Court of Appeals first analyzed Plaintiffs’ argument that the Hubers expressly reserved an easement over the trial. The Court first held that landowners can create an express easement by “express reservation in a document of conveyance” where “the owner reserves an easement over it for himself.” The Court used this rule to conclude that although the term “easements” was used in the quitclaim deed, the Hubers did not describe any specific easement that they wished to reserve. Similarly, the survey of the land never mentioned or depicted the trial. Therefore, because there was no relevant mention of the trail in the deed or the survey, neither document could create an express easement.
The Michigan Court of Appeals next considered the Plaintiffs’ argument that the Hubers created an implied easement. Under Michigan law, a plaintiff proves an implied easement apparent by showing (1) that during the unity of title an apparently permanent and obvious servitude was imposed on one part of an estate in favor of another, (2) continuity, and (3) that the easement is reasonably necessary for the fair enjoyment of the property it benefits. Turning to the third requirement first, the Court held that an easement is reasonably necessary when “alternative access or utilities cannot be obtained without a substantial expenditure of money or labor.” In this case, Plaintiffs testified that the trail was preferred because it was more convenient. However, the Court held that an easement is not reasonably necessary simply because individuals would be inconvenienced if deprived of its use. Therefore, because the trail was not reasonably necessary, an easement could not be implied either.
A link to the opinion can be found here: https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/court-of-appeals-unpublished/2019/345610.html
This article was written by Emily Honet, Law Clerk
