Easement location; Findings of fact following a bench trial; Motion for new trial or for relief from judgment; MCR 2.611(A)(1)(f); MCR 2.612(C)(1)(b); Newly discovered evidence; Failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing as to alleged perjury; Williams v Williams

The court concluded that the trial court did not clearly err in holding the West Drive was the easement described in plaintiff’s deed. Also, it did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for new trial or relief from judgment. Finally, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the circumstances did not call for a formal hearing on his claim that one of the defendants committed perjury. The “parties—neighbors with adjoining properties—clashed over which of two driveways was plaintiff’s easement.” Plaintiff’s lot was landlocked, and he claimed his “easement to access the highway, Bryce Road, was a gravel driveway” (the Gravel Drive). The defendants-McPhails believed that his “easement was a two-track dirt trail that wound through the woods on” their property (the West Drive). Plaintiff argued only the Gravel Drive matched the deed descriptions of the easement. While he was “correct that the West Drive twists and turns as it runs its course, this does not mean it does not travel in a north to south direction.” All the aerial photos “introduced at trial show the West Drive runs south from Bryce Road and ends when it reaches plaintiff’s lot. Thus, the West Drive proceeds in a north to south direction.” Also, while plaintiff and his friend testified that “the West Drive was only 8 to 10 feet wide, the trial court was not obligated to find this testimony credible.” Additionally, aerial photos showed, “in many areas, the width of both driveways was about the same.” The court found no clear error on either point. Plaintiff was correct that “the trial court clearly erred in finding the Gravel Drive never ran to plaintiff’s property, as plaintiff’s 1990, 1995, and 2000 aerial photographs plainly depict the Gravel Drive running all the way through to” his property. However, this did “not render clearly erroneous the trial court’s ultimate factual finding that the West Drive was the intended easement. Even if the Gravel Drive did, at some point in time, run all the way to plaintiff’s lot, defendants still presented unrefuted evidence that occupants of plaintiff’s lot always used the West Drive rather than the Gravel Drive.” Defendants-Ronald and James “testified defendants only used the Gravel Drive to access their business. James also testified that his niece resided on plaintiff’s property and she exclusively used the West Drive to access it. Even more, plaintiff testified he used the West Drive to access his property for the first six months he resided there.” Affirmed.