Easement by necessity; Charles A Murray Trust v. Futrell; Goodman v. Brenner; Schmidt v. Eger; Location; Wanbun Beach Ass’n v. Wilson; Balancing the easement holder’s reasonably necessary & convenient enjoyment of their property while imposing as little burden on the servient estate as possible; Frey v. Scott; Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)/Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes & Energy (EGLE)

Concluding that the trial court did not err in ordering the location of the easement by necessity where it did, the court affirmed its ruling that the easement must occur along the northern or southern border (rather than the center) of defendant-Hawkins’ property. Plaintiffs requested that the easement be located through the center of the property by using and extending an existing forest trail. They asserted that the routes at the northern or southern border were “not convenient routes, but unusable because of wetland regulations.” They relied on the opinion of a wetlands expert (R) who authored a report defendants presented to the trial court. But his report did not support their request. Rather, R “concluded that the MDEQ would prefer not to disrupt the wetland environment, and therefore, the agency would recommend that plaintiffs obtain a permit to continue to access their parcel through federal lands.” He also opined that this option was the most cost-effective. While representations were made about “what the MDEQ, now EGLE, would allow, administrative hearings involving EGLE were occurring, yet plaintiffs did not present documentary evidence to contest” R’s opinion. Thus, they did not show that the routes the trial court selected were inconvenient when compared to their request. They also failed to offer documentary evidence supporting their assertion “that the use of the existing forest trail would not be expensive.” R opined that it “would minimally cost over $200,000 to make the necessary improvements to” the forest trail. Further, the court rejected plaintiffs’ claim “that the trial court did not grant practical access and misapplied equity.” Hawkins used his property for recreational activities, including hunting and skiing. “He created a forest trail that led to his cabin” and had deer blinds off the trail. Thus, he “and his guests would be traversing the trail to engage in these outdoor activities.” There was far less likelihood of a hunting or skiing accident by placing the easement “at the northern or southern border as opposed to the middle of” his property. In addition, the trial court did not award “Hawkins’ rights to the detriment of plaintiffs’ access. Rather, the easement by necessity required balancing plaintiffs’ reasonably necessary and convenient enjoyment of their property while imposing as little burden on” his property as possible.