Easement; Heydon v MediaOne; Creation of an easement; Rossow v Brentwood Farms Dev, Inc; Scope of an easement; Blackhawk Dev Corp v Village of Dexter; Terlecki v Stewart; Modification of an easement; Schadewald v Brule; Great Lakes Gas Transmission Co v MacDonald

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting partial summary disposition for plaintiffs-property owners and declaring that they had exclusive right to use a private road easement. Plaintiffs sought a declaration of their rights to a private road easement when defendants-developers began developing an abutting parcel. Defendants used the easement “to access the parcel for construction purposes and indicated their intention to extend the private road for use as a means of ingress and egress to” the new lots, even though the parcel had its own specified easement for ingress and egress. The court rejected defendants’ argument that the trial court erred in determining that the private road easement specified that it ended at plaintiffs’ furthest lot, and that it could not be expanded. It found there was no ambiguity that the private road easement attached to the already-developed lots alone, and no indication that it was contemplated that the “easement would be extended beyond its designated terminus to serve” the parcel at issue or any future lot. Any use of the easement beyond that which was specified in the controlling documents “does not comport with the express intent of the developer and the rights, privileges, and obligations contractually binding the parties. The trial court properly analyzed the controlling documents and correctly determined that the private road easement” serves only the already-developed lots. It “correctly held that no genuine issue of material fact exists in this regard.” The court concluded that defendants “may create new lots out of undeveloped land, but they may not alter the easement agreements memorialized in the” controlling documents. The trial court correctly determined that these documents “established the scope of the private road easement and that it did not benefit” the parcel at issue or any future lots. Affirmed.