Easement rights; Whether a walkway easement was separate & distinct from a maintenance easement; Ownership of party walls between buildings

The court held that the walkway easement, on which plaintiff-Landmark Port Huron relied, “was separate and distinct from” a maintenance easement. It “stood on its own and could be used for purposes of ingress and egress generally.” Further, as to the dispute over ownership of party walls between the parties’ buildings, defendant-Pellerito’s “ownership rights did not extend beyond the inside faces of the walls of his building[.]” Thus, the trial court did not err in granting Landmark summary disposition as to its claims regarding trespass and declaratory relief as to the walkway easement and the party walls. The parties’ buildings were previously owned by a partnership, Home Town Investments. In 1997, it sold a portion of the property to Pellerito via land contract, which “reserve[ed] an easement for ingress and egress across the Easterly 3.75 feet of” the conveyed parcel. At the same time, a separate document titled MAINTENANCE EASEMENT was executed. In 2011, Home Town conveyed the rest of its property to Landmark by warranty deed. Landmark alleged that Pellerito took various actions that prevented access to, and use of, the walkway easement. The trial court ultimately determined that “the land contract and subsequent deed reserved a walkway easement, that the walkway easement was separate and distinct from the maintenance easement, that the walkway easement was an easement appurtenant to the property Home Town (dominant tenement) retained, that this easement was necessarily conveyed to Landmark along with the building by warranty deed, and that Landmark had the right to utilize the walkway easement for general ingress and egress purposes.” The court noted that the walkway easement did not “make any reference to the maintenance agreement or easement, nor did the language in the maintenance agreement indicate that it was incorporating in any fashion the walkway easement” in the land contract. The court rejected “Pellerito’s argument that the walkway easement was extinguished because the need for rooftop maintenance” ceased to exist, and to the extent he argued Landmark’s warranty deed “did not convey the walkway easement because no easement was mentioned,” this failed because “the walkway easement was plainly appurtenant to the property sold to Landmark and ran with the land, making it unnecessary to mention” it in the deed. Affirmed.