Easement scope; Little v Kin; Dock-length restriction; Historical use; Smith v Straughn; Littoral-use restrictions; Water access rights; Dyball v Lennox; Nuisance liability; Private nuisance elements; Terlecki v Stewart

The court held that the trial court erred by imposing dock-length and use restrictions not supported by the easement language or the historical use of the property. It also held that the verdict against defendant-Association on plaintiffs-homeowners’ nuisance claim could not stand. Plaintiffs owned one of the servient parcels burdened by a 1920 easement giving subdivision owners lake access and “the use of the dock in front of said land.” The trial court limited the dock to 30 feet, confined certain activities to the east side of the dock, and found the Association liable for nuisance. On appeal, the court held that the 30-foot limit was improper because an expired 1992 supplemental order issued in prior litigation no longer controlled and because “neither the language of the easement itself nor past practice supports that restriction.” The court next held that the trial court improperly restricted swimming, wading, and fishing because the subdivision owners historically used the easement, dock, and moored boats for those activities. Further, littoral-use easements include “‘an unrestricted right of access to the use of the waters’ for ‘the purpose of swimming, fishing, bathing, wading[,] and boating.’” The court also held that the east-side-only restriction was procedurally flawed because it shifted activity toward the other servient parcel “without allowing any opportunity for that property owner to be heard.” Finally, it held that the nuisance judgment against the Association had to be vacated because the trial court made “no findings of fact concerning plaintiffs’ nuisance claim.” In addition, “no evidence established that the conduct depicted in” a photo “could be attributed to the Association itself[.]” It vacated the judgments, reversed the verdict against the Association, and remanded.