In this case, neighbors with adjoining properties clashed over which of two driveways was plaintiff’s easement. Plaintiff’s lot was landlocked. Plaintiff argued his easement to access the highway was a gravel driveway (“the Gravel Drive”). Defendants argued plaintiff’s easement was a two-track dirt trail that wound through the woods on defendants’ property (“the West Drive”).
In May of 1972, members of defendants’ family were deeded the back half of a parent parcel of land (the M lot). The M lot did not have access to the highway, and so their deed provided an easement over the front half of the parent lot. The deed described the easement as an easement over and across the lands of the grantors in a North and South direction same being an existing roadway from the highway to the lands of the grantees, approximately 20 feet wide to be used for ingress and egress to the lands herein granted.
About 10 years later, defendants’ family created a new lot in the southeast corner of their lot. This would become plaintiff’s lot. The deed provided plaintiff’s lot an easement, and the deed described the easement the same way the 1972 deed described the M lot’s easement.
When plaintiff first moved into his lot in 2019, he began using the West Drive to access his lot. But eventually, plaintiff came to believe the Gravel Drive was the easement described in his deed. Plaintiff sued defendants for trespass and nuisance, alleging the Gravel Drive was his easement and defendants were interfering with his right to use it.
At the bench trial, defendant indicated that when the defendants moved onto their lot in 1972, the Gravel Drive did not exist yet only the West Drive did. Specifically, defendant testified his father put in the Gravel Drive a few years after 1972. Also, defendant testified that only the West Drive connected to plaintiff’s lot, as the Gravel Drive never connected to plaintiff’s lot. He testified all his family members who had lived on plaintiff’s lot before plaintiff, used the West Drive to access plaintiff’s lot.
Plaintiff offered no evidence to controvert defendant’s testimony that only the West Drive existed at the time the defendants received the deed to their lot. But plaintiff did offer evidence controverting defendant’s testimony about whether the Gravel Drive connected to plaintiff’s lot.
The trial court concluded the evidence showed the West Drive was the easement described in plaintiff’s deed, and plaintiff failed to prove otherwise. The trial court entered a judgment declaring the West Drive was plaintiff’s easement.
Assistance with Easement Disputes
Are you involved in an easement dispute with your neighbor? If you are facing an easement dispute you should seek the advice of an experienced and skilled real estate attorney. To schedule a consultation with one of our experienced real estate litigation attorneys, contact our law office in Plymouth, Michigan.