The use exercised by the holders of the easement must be reasonably necessary and convenient to the proper enjoyment of the easement, with as little burden as possible to the fee owner of the land. Although defendants Scotts raise valid points that the easement was intended to be limited in nature, there is simply not enough record evidence for us to effectively review the trial court's decision in this regard. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for the parties to present evidence regarding the purpose, character, and scope of the easement so that there is reasonable enjoyment by both parties. We do not intimate that the trial court's original decision was incorrect, only that we do not have sufficient evidence in the record before us to review this question. Last, plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred by limiting enforcement of rights of ingress and egress reserved in a deed granted by the DNR to the Scotts.
Plaintiffs again contend that the trial court erred in limiting the scope of the easement.
However, there is insufficient evidence in the lower court record for us to effectively review this issue. Accordingly, on remand, the parties are permitted to present evidence on this issue as well. If the trial court determines that Pleasant Lake is a dead end lake, then the public has no rights of access. The trial court's grant of summary disposition in favor of defendants is affirmed in part, and we remand for further factual development regarding the scope of the easement. We do not retain jurisdiction.