Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

GARY WARD and CLAUDIA WARD, Plaintiffs/Counter-DefendantsAppellees/Cross-Appellants, v BARRON PRECISION INSTRUMENTS, LLC and HASSAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants/Counter-PlaintiffsAppellants/Cross-Appellees.

UNPUBLISHED December 20, 2011

No. 298857 Genesee Circuit Court LC No. 03-077358-CH

GLENN M. HOWARTH and ANNE M. HOWARTH, Plaintiffs-Appellees/CrossAppellants, v BARRON PRECISION INSTRUMENTS, LLC and HASSAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants-Appellants/CrossAppellees. No. 298879 Genesee Circuit Court LC No. 03-077850-CH

Before: K.F. KELLY, P.J., and METER and GLEICHER, JJ. PER CURIAM. In these consolidated property dispute cases, defendants appeal as of right from the trial court's order determining the nature and scope of an easement in a reserved strip of land adjacent to a lake. Plaintiffs cross-appeal as of right from the same ruling. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

-1-

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case is before the Court for a third time. Though many of the facts are not in dispute, a recitation of the case's procedural history is warranted to provide a better understanding of its tortured history. A dispute arose concerning the rights to a strip of property lying between a row of platted lots and Warwick Lake in the Warwick Farms subdivision. The plat map specifically contains a handwritten note that, "the land lying between Lots 6-11 and Warwick Lake is reserved for the private use of the proprietors." The plat also contains a notation regarding Outlot A, which runs between lots 8 and 9 from Carriage Hill Drive to the reserved strip, that it "is reserved as private easement for the private use of the Lot Owners, Drain Commissioner and public utilities." Defendants own all of the land that was part of the original parcel that was not platted as part of the subdivision. Plaintiffs own lots that abut the reserved strip. Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants, seeking, among other things, an express easement in Outlot A, as well as a declaratory judgment that they were riparian owners. Plaintiffs argued that the platters intended for their lots to extend to the edge of the lake. Defendants maintained that the original platters, William and Edna Hovey, were the "proprietors" within the meaning of the handwritten notation and retained full ownership rights over the reserved strip. On plaintiffs' motion for summary disposition, the trial court found that plaintiffs' lots extended to the edge of the lake and that a private easement existed on Outlot A, which also extended to the lake. A. WARD I We reversed the trial court in Ward v Barron Precision Instruments, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued January 19, 2006 (Docket Nos. 263616; 263617) (Ward I), finding that "because the plat unambiguously shows that the individual lots are separated from Warwick Lake by the reserved strip, the trial court erred in holding that plaintiffs' lots extend to the edge of Warwick Lake." Ward I, slip op p 3. Nevertheless, we found that questions of fact remained as to whether plaintiffs possessed an independent interest in the reserved strip and, if so, the scope and nature of that interest. Id. The plat was ambiguous in that, "when viewed as a whole, other portions of the plat suggest that the term `proprietors' may not have been intended to refer solely to the Hoveys." Instead the plat indicates that the proprietors would "hold less than a full ownership rights in the reserved strip" and Outlot A. Id. at slip op p 4. We also considered the testimony of Edna Hovey that she and her husband "intended for all lot owners to have access to Warwick Lake" and, in fact, access to the lake was a "selling point." Id. at slip op p 5. Thus, "the evidence submitted below tends to show that if plaintiffs possess any interest in the reserved strip, it is only an easement interest" as opposed to in fee. Id. The trial court erred in finding that plaintiffs possessed full riparian rights to the reserved strip and in finding that the scope of the easement for Outlot A was to the edge of the lake. Id. at slip op p 6. "If, on remand, the trial court determines that the reserved strip and Outlot A form adjoining easements to allow access to Warwick Lake, its order should reflect that this does not give rise to full riparian rights." Id. On remand the trial court determined that the term "proprietor" as used in the plat actually meant "lot owners" and that the reserved strip was "available for the private use of the lot owners." Regarding the scope of easement the trial court found: "Now what does

Download GLEN M HOWARTH V BARRON PRECISION INSTRUMENTS LLC.pdf

Michigan Law