Request to modify an easement; Easement; Delaney v. Pond; Schadewald v. Brulé; Scope; Blackhawk Dev. Corp. v. Village of Dexter; Prescriptive easement; Lamkin v. Hartmeier; Heydon v. MediaOne; Mumrow v. Riddle; An easement holder’s right to use the land burdened by the easement; Department of Natural Res. v. Carmody-Lahti Real Estate, Inc.; The fee owner’s use of the land; Cantieny v. Friebe; Maintaining the easement; Morse v. Colitti

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying in part plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief related to modifying and maintaining an existing prescriptive easement. Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief allowing them to make modifications to an easement and prohibiting defendants from interfering with their maintenance of it. The trial court held that “because the improvements were unnecessary, and only desirable or convenient because of conditions created by plaintiffs, they were not permissible.” The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the trial court erred by finding they were not permitted to make these improvements because widening the cul-de-sac roadway within the boundaries of the prescriptive easement was permissible, as was “paving their driveway into the easement and installing a basketball court and water faucet” by their new garage. It agreed with the trial court that they failed to show that it was necessary to make the improvements for their “reasonable use of the easement for ingress and egress to their home, for parking, and other activities for which a residential driveway is commonly used.” While their “decision to add a second garage may have made their use of the easement less than optimal or inconvenient,” the court was “not persuaded that the trial court made a mistake when it concluded that the proposed improvements [we]re unnecessary to the effective use of the easement as granted . . . .” It also rejected their claim that the trial court erred by concluding defendants could place boulders and landscaping items on the easement because they have the unfettered right to maintain it, noting “defendants as owners of the property have rights that plaintiffs do not enjoy as easement holders.” As long as they “do not interfere with plaintiffs’ limited rights to use the easement,” they may “exercise their ownership rights through the landscaping of their property. Defendants’ property rights must be thoughtfully balanced with plaintiffs’ privilege to burden their estate.” Plaintiffs had “an obligation to maintain the roadway so that it is fit for vehicular travel and parking, as well to mow the grass as plaintiffs’ predecessor did, but defendants as the property owners have the right to landscape the property for beautification, aesthetic, and conservations purposes irrelevant to the purpose of the easement.” The court found that the placement of boulders was within the rights of defendants, but cautioned that “the boulders must not interfere with plaintiffs’ right to use the easement as granted.” Affirmed.