Opinion ID: 837889
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the central easement included utility access at the time of platting

Text: We must determine if the central easement running from Lake Shore Road to Lot 2 includes utility access, or if its use is strictly limited to ingress and egress. Under well-established Michigan law, [t]he use of an easement must be confined strictly to the purposes for which it was granted or reserved. [16] Exacting magic words are not required on a plat to create an easement. [17] When interpreting deeds and plats, Michigan courts seek to effectuate the intent of those who created them. [18] Plaintiffs assert that, when the original grantors platted the subdivision, they assumed that both the south easement and the central easement included access for utilities. Defendants assert the contrary and add that Lot 2 was always intended to remain vacant. It is undisputed that the central and south easements are identically labeled drive easement on the plat. At the time of platting, the central easement was used only for ingress and egress to Lot 2; there were no utilities on the easement. However, the south easement was used both as a driveway and for telephone and electrical lines to Lots 3, 4, and 5. We find a strong inference that the words drive easement on the central easement were intended to have the same meaning as drive easement on the south easement. We conclude that the original grantors would have labeled the easements differently had they intended to allow utilities on the south easement, but not on the central easement. And we conclude that the original grantors intended the central and south easements to have the same scope: both road access for ingress and egress and utility access. As early as 1883, Michigan courts recognized that a party using a right-of-way for a particular purpose cannot prevent a subsequent party from making the same use of the property. In Bell v. Todd , the plaintiffs sought to enjoin the defendant from blocking access to a road that was platted but never constructed. [19] Plaintiff Bell had previously blocked unbuilt roads in the same plat. The Court dismissed the case, stating: [I]t also appears that Railroad street south of South street is enclosed and occupied by Bell himself, so that he is doing in his own individual interest in respect to this very street precisely what he seeks to enjoin defendant from doing. It would be preposterous to grant the relief prayed for on his application under such circumstances.[ [20] ] Although two streets, not one, are involved here, we believe Bell is instructive. Defendants use their drive easement for utilities and seek to prevent plaintiffs from using their drive easement for the same purpose. In the words of Justice Cooley in Bell, to allow such a result would be preposterous. It is apparent, also, that the grantors envisioned that a house would be built on Lot 2 and, by extension, that the central easement would include utilities. This may be gleaned from two drawings by C.W. Henkle, one of the original grantors. The first was made in 1969, six years before the subdivision was platted. It shows Lot 2 and the adjacent lot to the east, Lot 1. On Lot 2 is a rectangle with the words possible house location and dimensions. The central easement is shown on the drawing. C.W. Henkle made a second drawing in 1978, three years after the subdivision and easements were platted. Like his first drawing, it shows a location on Lot 2 where plaintiffs could build a home. The central easement is visible on the drawing. It is significant that C.W. Henkle included the central easement in his drawings of Lot 2 with a house. He knew then that no house could be erected there until the lot had access to a sewer line. He knew, also, that the central easement was the only likely route to provide that access. Taken together, these drawings provide further evidence of intent that the central drive easement should include utilities. Finally, contrary to the defendants' claim, the wording of the restrictive covenant shows that the original grantors always intended that a house could be built on Lot 2. When attempting to discern the parties' intent, we construe together contemporaneous documents relating to the same transaction. [21] The restrictive covenant on Lot 2 was executed contemporaneously with the plat; therefore, it is relevant in discerning the parties' intent at the time. It does not make sense that the original grantors would have inserted language regarding a sewer in the restrictive covenant had they intended that no building ever be placed on Lot 2. If they had really intended to forever prevent building on Lot 2, they would have simply covenanted that no building ever be put there. The reference to a sewer makes sense, however, if the grantors' intent was to eventually allow a building on Lot 2. This becomes readily apparent when the geographical limitations of the plat are considered. The plat is approximately five acres in size. Only the eastern half is suitable for housing because a bluff runs along the middle of the property, descending to the beach and Lake Michigan. Therefore, the five lots suitable for residences adjoin each other on roughly the 2.5 easternmost acres of land. In 1975, when the subdivision was platted and the restrictive covenant was written, none of the lots had access to a municipal sewer system. Septic tanks [22] were the only plausible alternative for waste management on the lots. However, because of concerns over numerous septic systems and leach fields [23] in the relatively small area, a septic system was not an option for every lot. Cognizant of this problem, the original grantors likely enacted the restrictive covenant to prevent construction of a house on Lot 2 until municipal sewer service became available to it. Hence, the restrictive covenant prevented overloading the small area of land with septic waste. When a municipal sewer system became available to the plat in the late 1970s, the condition in the restrictive covenant was satisfied. The restrictive covenant had served its purpose. From this we conclude that it was the intent of the original grantors that a house could be built on Lot 2 when a municipal sewer became available. We conclude also that the central drive easement was intended, like the south drive easement, to provide access to the sewer and other utilities.