734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

REAL ESTATE 62: THE SUPREME COURT VACATED THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION AND REMANDED THE CASE FOR RECONSIDERATION

BACKGROUND

The Court needed to determine the actual extent of an easement for a drain that runs across the southern edge of the plaintiff’s property. The releases at issue conveyed rights to fifty-foot strips of land on either side of the centerline of the drain. The fifty-foot strips were legally described, in part, as “land 50 feet wide on each side of a line . . . for construction of drain and deposition of earth. . . .” The releases also contained the following provision: This conveyance is based upon the above described line of Route and shall be deemed to include the extreme width of said drain as shown in the survey thereof, to which reference is hereby made for a more particular measurement, and includes a release for all claims to damages in any way arising from or incident to the opening and maintaining of said drain across said premises, and also sufficient ground on either side of the center line of said drain for the construction thereof and for the deposit of the excavations therefrom.

In interpreting this provision, the Court of Appeals determined that the easement actually extends beyond the fifty-foot strips explicitly described in the releases based on the “and also” language.

ANALYSIS

The Court of Appeals did not clearly articulate how it arrived at this conclusion. On remand, the Court of Appeals shall reconsider whether the easement actually extends beyond the fifty-foot strips explicitly described in the releases by addressing: (1) the basis for the conclusion that “[t]he drafters of the releases would have understood the formal property descriptions to be the ‘surveys’ referenced in the above language[;]” (2) whether the “formal property descriptions” of the fifty-foot strips referred only to “the extreme width of said drain as shown in the survey thereof,” and, if so, the basis for this determination; (3) whether “the ‘and also’ clause was merely a reference back to the same fifty-foot strips,” and, if so, the basis for this determination; (4) whether the inclusion of the phrase “for construction of drain and deposition of earth” within the “formal property descriptions” contemplates land other than the drain itself located within the fifty-foot strips that was reserved for maintenance; and (5) whether “and also” merely conjoined “the extreme width of said drain as shown in the survey thereof” with “sufficient ground on either side of the center line of said drain” in describing in plain language what the conveyance included.

CONCLUSION

In reconsidering whether the easement actually extends beyond the fifty-foot strips explicitly described in the releases, the Court of Appeals shall also reconsider those claims impacted by this determination that were disposed of on summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (8).

ASSISTANCE WITH PROPERTY ISSUES

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

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

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

REAL ESTATE 65: Determining that it could not conclude the trial court erred in its factual findings, and that it did not err in reforming a 2005 deed, the court affirmed the ruling that defendants were fee simple owners of the disputed 50-foot area

This case arose from a real-property dispute between brothers, as well as their respective wives. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered its findings of fact. The trial court determined that plaintiffs did not prove that excluding the...

FAMILY LAW 58: The trial court did not err by denying defendant-father’s motion to change custody and modify his parenting time of the parties’ child without having an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was proper cause or a change in circums

This case arose from a custody and parenting-time dispute between plaintiff-mother and father over their minor child. After father failed to respond to the paternity complaint within the 21 days of receipt of the complaint, mother filed an affidavit...

DIVORCE 53: Although the court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny defendant’s motions to set aside the default and the default JOD, it vacated the portions of the default JOD as to the distribution of marital property, custody, parenting t

Plaintiff filed for divorce. Defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim for divorce.  Plaintiff and defendant were both ordered to appear at the settlement conference. After defendant failed to appear, the trial court entered a default. Soon...

FAMILY LAW 53: The trial court erred by treating the parties’ GAL as an LGAL and denying the parties the right to question her at a hearing; however, the trial court did not err in requiring the parties to compensate the GAL for her services.

Plaintiff and Defendant were never married, but share a young son who was born in 2016. The parties have battled over custody, child support, and other parenting issues ever since. In the spring of 2019, the parties filed competing motions to modify...

The Difference Between Theft, Robbery, and Burglary

Original Post: 1/11/2019 Often, burglary, robbery, and theft are used interchangeably even though there are distinct differences between all of them. Though, what all three do have in common is they may involve the unlawful taking of...

REAL ESTATE 59: Concluding that the one-year period contained in the parties’ home purchase agreement was not a statute of limitations, but rather akin to a statute of repose, and that it was plain and unambiguous, the court held that it barred plai

BACKGROUND On March 12, 2016, the parties entered into an agreement for the purchase of defendants’ home. The purchase agreement contained the following clause: TIME FOR LEGAL ACTION: Buyer and Seller agree that any legal action against...

CRIMINAL LAW 16: The trial court did not err in refusing to order a Daubert hearing as to the reliability of the DataMaster breathalyzer device as MCL 257.625a(6)(a) shows the Legislature has determined that the device’s results are valid and reliabl

UNDERLYING FACTS In the early afternoon of November 4, 2016, defendant was pulled over after an officer was dispatched for a possible drunk driver. The officer had defendant exit his vehicle and perform several field sobriety tests. Those tests...

FAMILY LAW 52: Defendant-mother was not entitled to relief on her claim the trial court did not comply with the requirements for a de novo hear, the trial court did not err in using the preponderance of the evidence standard, and its best interest f

PERTINENT FACTS In July 2017, plaintiff and defendant divorced by consent judgment. Under the judgment of divorce, the parties shared joint legal and physical custody of their three minor children. On September 24, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion...

Are you required to provide ID as a passenger?

Original Post: 05/14/2017 The preceding is for informational purposes only. Being stopped by the police is not usually a pleasant experience. Even with the most benign of infractions, the encounter can be adversarial. The idea of...

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