Easement; Whether the trial court extended an easement beyond its legal description; Abandonment of the easement; Compatibility of plaintiffs’ proposed use; Claim that the dock proposed by plaintiffs would violate state law & a local ordinance; Ripeness

The court held that based on the plain language of a 1989 agreement, the trial court correctly concluded that “the parties’ predecessors amended the easement to extend it to the water’s edge to allow” construction of a boat dock. Also, the trial court did not err when it held that plaintiffs did not abandon their rights under the easement. Any argument based on a prescriptive easement failed. Further, plaintiffs were permitted to construct a dock, despite the existence of the boat ramp. Finally, the issue that the dock would violate state law and a local ordinance was not ripe. The case arose from a dispute between neighboring property owners over the scope and application of an easement. Defendants contended that under the express language of the easement, it did not extend to the edge of Silver Lake. Thus, they argued that “plaintiffs did not have the right to construct a dock on Silver Lake and the trial court erred when it concluded otherwise.” Defendants posited, and plaintiffs did “not appear to contest, that the legal description of the easement does not extend to the water’s edge.” As a result, defendants argued that the trial court could not have held that “the easement permitted construction of a boat dock.” But this argument ignored “the plain language of the 1989 agreement.” The court concluded that “the language of the 1965 easement, when coupled with the 1989 agreement, unambiguously provided for the construction of a boat dock at the end of the easement and edge of Silver Lake. Under the 1989 agreement, the parties’ predecessors agreed that the ‘owners of property abutting the Easement may build a boat dock on Silver Lake at the end of the Easement at Silver Lake for the purpose of mooring boats owned by them but not others.’” Defendants offered no explanation regarding “how to harmonize this provision of the 1989 agreement with their argument that the easement did not extend to the water’s edge. Indeed, defendants’ failure to harmonize the 1989 agreement with the original easement language creates ambiguity where none previously existed.” Affirmed.