Case Title: ROBERT LITTLE V STEVEN KIN

Citation: 

Docket Number: 121037

State: michigan

Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Date: 2003-07-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
___________________________________ 
Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan 48909 
Chief Justice 
Justices 
Maura D. Corrigan 
Michael F. Cavanagh 
Elizabeth A. Weaver 
Marilyn Kelly 
Clifford W. Taylor 
Robert P. Young, Jr. 
Opinion 
Stephen J. Markman 
FILED JULY 9, 2003  
ROBERT LITTLE and  
BARBARA LITTLE,  
Plaintiffs-Appellants,  
v 
No. 121037  
STEVEN KIN, ROSALYN KIN, THOMAS 
TRIVAN, and DARLENE TRIVAN,  
Defendants-Appellees.  
BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH  
MEMORANDUM OPINION  
We granted leave to appeal to consider the scope of  
defendants’ easement “for access to and use of the riparian  
rights to Pine Lake.”  467 Mich 898 (2002). Having reviewed  
the issues involved, we agree with the judgment of the Court  
of Appeals.1  
1249 Mich App 502; 644 NW2d 375 (2002).  
 
 
  
However, we write briefly to clarify the trial court’s  
duties on remand.  
First, the trial court must determine whether the  
easement contemplates the construction and maintenance of a  
dock by defendants.  In answering this question, the trial  
court shall begin by examining the text of the easement.  
Where the language of a legal instrument is plain and  
unambiguous, it is to be enforced as written and no further  
inquiry is permitted. See, e.g., Gawrylak v Cowie, 350 Mich  
679, 683; 86 NW2d 809 (1957).  If the text of the easement is  
ambiguous, extrinsic evidence may be considered by the trial  
court in order to determine the scope of the easement.2  
If the easement grants defendants the right to construct  
or maintain a dock, the trial court must determine whether the  
particular dock at issue is permissible under the law of  
easements.  
Under 
our 
well-established 
easement 
jurisprudence,  
the dominant estate may not make improvements to the servient  
estate if such improvements are unnecessary for the effective  
use of the easement or they unreasonably burden the servient  
tenement. Crew’s Die Casting Corp v Davidow, 369 Mich 541;  
2We note that the Court of Appeals stated that “in 
deciding the scope of defendants’ rights under the easement, 
the trial court must consider the language in the easement 
itself and the circumstances existing at the time of the grant 
. . . .” 249 Mich App 514 (emphasis added).  This directive is  
clearly inconsistent with the well-established principles of 
legal interpretation as stated above and is thus incorrect.  
2  
 
120 NW2d 238 (1963); Unverzagt v Miller, 306 Mich 260, 265; 10  
NW2d 849 (1943); Mumrow v Riddle, 67 Mich App 693, 700; 242  
NW2d 489 (1976).  Accordingly, if the trial court concludes  
that the easement grants defendants the right to construct or  
maintain a dock, it must then determine (1) whether the dock  
is necessary for defendants’ effective use of their easement  
and (2) whether the dock unreasonably burdens plaintiffs’  
servient estate.  
To the extent consistent with this opinion, the judgment  
of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.  The case is remanded to  
the trial court for further proceedings.  
Maura D. Corrigan 
Michael F. Cavanagh 
Elizabeth A. Weaver  
Clifford W. Taylor 
Robert P. Young, Jr. 
Stephen J. Markman  
KELLY, J.  
I concur in the result only.  
Marilyn Kelly  
3