Scope of an easement; Bayberry Group, Inc v Crystal Beach Condo Ass’n; Scope of injunctive relief

The court held that while the trial court did not err in granting plaintiff-association summary disposition based on the plain language of the easement at issue, its injunction as to defendant’s use of the easement exceeded the relief requested by plaintiff “and improperly limited defendant’s use of the property[.]” Thus, the court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded for it “to clarify the order’s language regarding: (1) what use is permitted by defendant under the easement as opposed to what use is permitted by defendant as a member of the Association, and (2) what use is permitted by defendant’s short-term tenants under the easement and Association bylaws.” The court noted that “defendant was expressly granted an easement for ‘the right of ingress, egress over lots 17 & 18 . . . with dock privilege not to exceed 20’ section . . . .’” Given this unambiguous language, reasonable minds could not disagree that the easement “clearly only provided defendant with the right to: (1) ingress and egress over plaintiff’s land to access the lake and (2) use the dock.” On appeal, defendant only challenged “the scope of relief, arguing that the language of the trial court’s order exceeded plaintiff’s requested relief—to limit defendant’s use under the easement—and improperly limited defendant’s use of the property, as a member of the Association, under the Association’s bylaws.” Plaintiff conceded “it ‘did not ask the trial court to determine Defendant’s rights under the Bylaws in regard to the use of Lots 17 & 18 (only as to the rights of Defendant’s short-term tenants to use the pier) . . . .’” The court agreed. The operative language of the order did “not differentiate between defendant’s use under the easement and [its] use as a member of the Association. Pursuant to the order’s language, defendant itself, not just its short-term renters, is enjoined from ‘[u]sing Lots 17 and 18 for anything other than ingress and egress to Coldwater Lake’ and from” using them to picnic, sunbathe, and play in the sand. This language failed to “take into account the Association’s bylaws[,].” which it was undisputed allowed “defendant, its family members, and nonpaying visitors certain rights beyond lake ingress and egress such as picnicking, sunbathing, and playing in the sand. Therefore, to the extent that the current order prohibits defendant itself from engaging in those activities, although complying with the easement language, it appears to contradict defendant’s rights under the bylaws.”