In Burn v Poropat, Unpublished Court of Appeals Case No. 342045 (Decided May 16, 2019) the plaintiffs sought to modify a pre-existing easement, which allowed for ingress and egress. After unsuccessfully seeking approval for the proposed modification from the servient estate, the plaintiffs filed a declaratory action seeking to allow them to modify the easement and prohibit the defendants from interfering with the maintenance of the modification. Specifically, the proposed modification sought to make access to plaintiffs’ newly constructed garage easier.
An easement is a limited right to use another’s land for the specified purpose for which it was granted. Delaney v Pond, 350 Mich 685, 687 (1957). Additionally, the scope of the easement holder’s rights is determined by considering the language of the instrument that granted the easement, Blackhawk Dev Corp, 473 Mich 33, 42 (2005), and an easement cannot be modified unilaterally by either party once granted. Schadewald v Brulé, 225 Mich App 26, 35 (1997).
Given that the plaintiffs easement provided for ingress and egress and plaintiffs simply sought to make it more convenient to access their newly constructed garage, the trial court found that “because the improvements were unnecessary, and only desirable or convenient because of conditions created by plaintiffs, they were not permissible.” Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary disposition in favor of the defendants.
Read more about our expertise in real property law.
Real Property LawAbout the Author
