734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

Developer cannot extend recreational use easement beyond its original scope

The court held that the easement was unambiguous as to its scope. Further, defendant-FNBH did not have the status of "developer" and did not have the authority to modify the recreational use easement. After a series of litigation between defendant-Bergin (mortgagee), plaintiff-DPC (leasee), and FNBH (mortgagor), as to the foreclosure proceeding for parcel 9, intervening plaintiff-Chukker Cove sought a declaratory judgment against FNBH for terminating a recreational use easement on parcel 9 and denying Chukker Cove access to the recreational land. On appeal, Chukker Cove argued that the recreational use easement expressly granted in the "Chukker Cove Development Declaration Agreement" covered all of parcel 9 and that the trial court erred when it did not follow the easement's plain language or common sense in ruling the easement granted was confined to three areas. The court disagreed. Chukker Cove argued that, because parcel 9 was depicted in its entirety, all of parcel 9 was subject to the recreational easement. The court held that this argument was unconvincing because the easement specifically described and depicted three specific areas as the easement. "Following Chukker Cove's logic, the easement would not only cover all of parcel 9, but it also would cover 15 individual lots owned by members of Chukker Cove that are included in the sketch depicting the 35-foot bridle path easement." Thus, the easement was "unambiguous in granting an easement over a 20-foot wide ingress and egress path, a 35-foot wide bridle path, and the depicted open space area" and the court would not consider the extrinsic evidence provided by Chukker Cove to interpret the easement differently. The court was "not convinced the trial court made a mistake based on its interpretation of the scope of the easement." Affirmed.

Antenuptial agreement held to be valid and enforceable

The court held that the parties' antenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable, concluding that to invalidate it on the basis of one party's fault would contravene the agreement's clear and unambiguous language, and that as a matter of law, the...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000
734-237-6482
734-366-4405