Opinion ID: 848631
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: any proposed use of an easement is required to be within the easement's scope

Text: The purpose of an easement is determined by the parties and ascertained by applying principles similar to those used when contracts are construed. 1 Restatement Property, 3d, § 4.1, comment d, p. 499 (2000). The terms of the easement conveyance are given their ordinary meaning in light of the surrounding circumstances. Newaygo Mfg. Co. v. Chicago & W.M. Ry. Co., 64 Mich. 114, 122-123, 30 N.W. 910 (1887); 25 Am. Jur. 2d, § 18, p. 516, § 73, p. 571; 1 Restatement Property, 3d, § 4.1, comment d, p. 499. If a specific use is not enumerated in the easement conveyance, the surrounding circumstances may be considered to ascertain the intent of the parties. Newaygo at 122-123, 1 Restatement Property, 3d, § 4.10, comment a, p. 592, and comment d, p. 595. See also Thies v. Howland, 424 Mich. 282, 293, 380 N.W.2d 463 (1985). The majority agrees with the principle enunciated by this Court in Unverzagt v. Miller [2] that `[t]he 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.' Ante at 369, quoting Unverzagt at 265, 10 N.W.2d 849. In Unverzagt, the defendant granted the plaintiffs an easement to use the private streets of the subdivision to gain access to their cottages. The plaintiffs wanted local merchants to be able to deliver goods to them. The defendant claimed that the easement did not permit others, not social guests of the plaintiffs, to use the streets without the defendant's permission. This Court held that the condition laid down by the defendant unreasonably restricted the right of the plaintiffs. The proper test, we ruled, is whether it was reasonably necessary for the use and enjoyment of the easement that plaintiffs could invite nonsocial guests to use the private streets. We held that holders of the easement had the right to use it limited only by what was necessary to and reasonable in its use. This included allowing nonsocial guests to make deliveries over it. It did not include use by the general public. Unverzagt at 265-267, 10 N.W.2d 849. In this case, the easement is for ... opening and improving Dan Hoey Road. Sidewalks, utilities and lighting systems are improvements to highways. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.), p. 757. Despite implications to the contrary, [3] the majority opinion concedes that Dexter Development's proposed projects are improvements. Ante at 370. [4] It is readily apparent that landscaping and drainage ponds reasonably could improve Dan Hoey Road by controlling rainwater runoff, thereby enhancing the safety and life of the road. Access drives and sidewalks would improve and open the road by facilitating public access to and from it by vehicles and pedestrians on the north. By granting Dexter Development permission to install these improvements, the village authorized the improvement and opening of Dan Hoey Road. The majority opinion's factual comparison of this case with Unverzagt shows that there are limits to Unverzagt's application here. Ante at 371 n. 6. The easement in that case was private and the issue concerned use of an easement by invited guests of the easement holders. Here, the easement is held by a government entity and is for a road used by the general public. An easement to improve and open a public road is by its terms more expansive than an easement to access a private road. The Court's decision in Unverzagt to prohibit general public use was necessary to fulfill the parties' intentions to create a private easement to allow access to certain cottages. The ruling disallowed use of the easement for purposes other than access, such as picnics, because they would defeat the purpose of the easement. In the case before us, the property owner granted an easement for public purposes to a governmental entity. The parties intended to create an easement that inherently encompassed broader uses than those allowed in Unverzagt. [5] The surrounding circumstances confirm that the parties who created the easement intended that it could be used for projects such as those proposed by Dexter Development. The grantor's view of the scope of the easement is more persuasive of the scope than the view of a later purchaser of the burdened estate. Crew's Die Casting Corp. v. Davidow, 369 Mich. 541, 546, 120 N.W.2d 238 (1963). [6] A party may not unilaterally change the scope of an easement once conveyed. Schadewald v. Brule, 225 Mich.App. 26, 36, 570 N.W.2d 788 (1997), citing Douglas v. Jordan, 232 Mich. 283, 287, 205 N.W. 52 (1925). See also Schumacher v. Dep't of Natural Resources, 256 Mich.App. 103, 106, 663 N.W.2d 921 (2003). The village obtained an easement over the whole parcel rather than merely over the new roadbed. The Court of Appeals wrote that the village's attorney testified the crescent-shaped piece of land ... was meant to be used to provide rights of way to the north residences that were separated from the road. [Unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued January 27, 2004 (Docket No. 240790), 2004 WL 134014.] Dexter Development was owned by the grantor of the easement. His failure to object to the access drives when he granted the easement suggests that the parties who created it understood that opening the road included building access roads. The majority opinion fails to take proper account of the factual circumstances of this case. I would hold that, because Dexter Development's activities will improve and open Dan Hoey Road, they are within the scope of the easement.