Blog

REAL ESTATE 35: An easement holder has the limited right to use the land but does not have the right to possess that land as does the fee owner of the land.

In 1990, a judgment was entered granting plaintiffs’ the prescriptive easement at issue, stating in relevant part:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that said easement shall be for the benefit of Parcels I and II, and more specifically:

A. For the purpose of providing a driveway for and ingress and egress to and from Parcels I and II; and,

B. to provide for parking and all other activities reasonably associated with driveways in residential areas, the uses in this Section B., however, to be only for the benefit of that portion of the easement immediately contiguous to Parcel I.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the owner of Parcel I shall maintain and be responsible for all costs incurred maintaining that portion of the above easement immediately contiguous to Parcel I.

In 2015, plaintiffs purchased the property at issue, i.e., Parcel I. Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs constructed a second garage on the parcel and installed a cement driveway that extends into the prescriptive easement.

In September 2016, plaintiffs proposed to modify the easement which included relocating the gravel roadway, removing the turnaround island, and extending the radius of the turn. Plaintiffs sought approval from the current owners of the servient estate, defendants, and such approval was denied.

Plaintiffs then filed this action. Accordingly, plaintiffs requested declaratory relief, allowing them to make the proposed modifications to the easement as depicted in the gravel drive improvement plan and prohibiting the defendants from interfering with their maintenance of the easement.

Further, plaintiffs sought to move their driveway significantly closer to the defendant’s home which reduced the size of their backyard while increasing the size of plaintiffs’ front yard. And the defendants were not interested in selling the easement parcel. Moreover, the defendants noted, plaintiffs then-recent renovations were in violation of the building permit they had obtained in that plaintiffs’ concrete driveway encroached on the defendants property and other concrete slabs increased the impermeable surface and thereby the flow of drainage water onto the defendants property in violation of the drainage ordinance.

Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10). Defendants argued that plaintiffs had no legal right to relocate their driveway onto adjacent property. The fact that plaintiffs created a problem by constructing a second garage was an insufficient reason to unilaterally modify the existing prescriptive easement. Accordingly, defendants argued, this case must be dismissed.

On July 12, 2017, the trial court issued its opinion denying defendants’ motion for summary disposition. The court first noted that because defendants’ motion relied on evidence beyond the scope of the pleadings, summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) would be improper.

On December 18, 2017, a bench trial was conducted. On December 20, 2017, the trial court held, because the improvements were unnecessary, and only desirable or convenient because of conditions created by plaintiffs, they were not permissible. The court noted that the cul-de-sac had been in the same state for at least 57 years and met plaintiffs’ necessary needs.

Are you involved in a real estate dispute in Michigan? Are you seeking an efficient and effective resolution to a property litigation matter?

If you are facing a residential or commercial real estate, seek the advice of an experienced and skilled real estate litigation attorney at Aldrich Legal Services in Plymouth.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

REAL ESTATE 36: Plaintiff argued that her claim was not time-barred because it did not accrue until the grandmother’s death.

Plaintiff’s interest in the subject property is best characterized as a remainder estate, because her right to possession of the property was postponed until the occurrence of a specific contingency, that being the deaths of the grandparents. Plaintiff pursued this action within the 15-year limitation period; accordingly, this action is not barred by MCL 600.5801(4).

LITIGATION 6: The terms of the agreement prevails over the course of performance.

The trial court determined that under the UCC, the express terms of the parties’ agreements prevailed over the course of their performance and course of dealing. Although a course of performance may show that parties have waived a specific contractual term under MCL 440.1303(6), the statute does not similarly provide that a course of dealing may demonstrate waiver.

PROBATE 27: Petitioner filed a petition for mental-health treatment.

In support of the allegations, petitioner attached clinical certificates from a physician and a psychiatrist who observed respondent at the hospital. Both doctors diagnosed respondent with bipolar disorder, determined that she displayed a likelihood of injuring herself and that she did not understand the need for treatment, and recommended a course of treatment that consisted of 60 days of hospitalization and 90 days of outpatient care.

5 Things Everyone Should Do Before Starting a Business

So, you have a great idea and the experience to back it up. You are in a great starting place, but you have some work to do before jumping into forming your own business. Consider the following steps before you begin the process of starting your...

FAMILY LAW 32: Trial court committed error in failing to address whether there was an established custodial environment.

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court failed to make any findings regarding (1) the child’s established custodial environment, (2) the child’s best interests regarding the grant of primary physical custody to defendant, (3) the child’s best interests with respect to parenting time, and (4) the child’s best interests pertaining to the parties’ dispute over daycare.

PROBATE 25: Daughter removed as personal representative of the estate.

the probate court determined that Daughter J had managed the estate in a manner that promoted her own interests as a beneficiary over the interests of the estate. The probate court found that such management demonstrated mismanagement of the estate and that removal of Daughter J was therefore in the best interests of the estate.

4 Last Minute Ways to Avoid Foreclosure

One tough break seems to lead to another. If you get behind on mortgage payments, you could be in danger of having your house foreclosed upon by the bank. Lenders foreclose on real estate to recoup their losses. But this means you won’t have a...

5 Necessary Sections Your Prenuptial Agreement Needs

Many big decisions come with getting engaged. Planning for marriage can be exciting and romantic, although the thought of adding a prenuptial agreement may not stoke your passion, they can help you now and in the future. Prenuptial agreements are...

REAL ESTATE 32: Plaintiffs and defendants executed a second easement.

Plaintiffs requested that the trial court, either through reformation of the First Easement or interpretation of the Second Easement, quiet title in favor of plaintiffs and declare them to be the owners of an easement to access Lake Superior through the ravine on defendants’ property, enjoin defendants from interfering with their use of the easement, and order compensation for damages to the stairs.

LITIGATION 4: Plaintiff claimed installation of hardwood flooring breached the condo bylaws.

Defendants completed the project. Plaintiff did not pay for any of the costs of the project. Defendants moved to compel plaintiff to pay one-half of the costs under the agreement. Plaintiff responded that defendants had materially breached the agreement in several ways, including by denying her the right to supervise the project, by refusing to give her an installation schedule, and by starting work before plaintiff approved of the start date.

FAMILY LAW 30: Discretionary trust assets cannot be reached to satisfy claims for child support and alimony.

The key difference between discretionary trusts, support trusts, and spendthrift trusts is that creditors cannot compel the trustee of a discretionary trust to pay any part of the income or principal in order that the creditors may be paid. The opposite is true of spendthrift and support trusts, which allow trust assets to be reached to satisfy creditors, including creditors seeking to satisfy claims for child support and alimony.

An Easy Guide to Navigate the Probate Process

Families can help each other through life’s toughest moments. However, issues come up when the strain of losing a loved one combines with the stress of honoring their last wishes. Probate protects beneficiaries best interests. Though...

Top 3 Misconceptions on Power of Attorney

Considering leaving the country for a long time while maintaining a business or selling a home in the US? Were you recently diagnosed with a terminal or degenerative disease? For these and many other issues, it may become necessary for someone...

FAMILY LAW 29: Quitclaim deed signed after prenuptial agreement prevails.

The court ruled that title to the land prevails and that once the deed was signed, the property became the undivided whole interest for both the decedent and appellee and became appellee’s property upon the decedent’s death. Consequently, the court concluded that the prenuptial agreement did not have any impact on the property rights of appellee in this case.

Know the Differences between Annulment and Divorce

  Marriage can end through two ways: divorce and annulment. Though both of these options have the same result, each has different requirements. There are many similarities and differences between a divorce and an annulment, so many...

Understanding Vaping Laws for Minors

  Vaping is a fad that is quickly solidifying into a stable industry of products around the world. Vaping and electronic cigarette (or e-cigarette) use have dramatically increased from roughly “seven million [users] in 2011 to 35...

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