Plat dedication restrictions; Right to use a road for installation of water lines; Whether the dedication language was ambiguous; Permanent injunction; Moot issues as to entry of a temporary restraining order & preliminary injunction; Claim for negligent installation of the water lines; No cause of action

The court held that the language of the plat dedication at issue and the survey included in the plat provided evidence of intent that the private roads were available for utility installation. It also concluded that the trial court did not err in finding that defendant-Walby failed to prove a negligence claim against plaintiffs based on their contractor’s actions. Thus, the court affirmed summary disposition for plaintiffs and the trial court’s order that a permanent injunction issue, as well as the judgment of no cause of action on Walby’s counterclaim. The parties own property in a private plat subdivision. The case arose when plaintiffs sought to install water lines needed to connect their homes to municipal water taps at the west end of the subdivision. The issue on appeal was “the extent of plaintiffs’ right to use Charlen Drive for the installation of their water lines.” Resolving this turned “on the interpretation of the original 1956 dedication.” The court concluded that the dedication language was “clear and unambiguous. It simply provides that the ‘private roads . . . are dedicated to the sole and only use of the lot owners . . . .’ The dedication contains no express prohibition against using Charlen Drive or Florence Court to install public utilities. The plain language of the dedication restricts who may use the private roads, not to what use the private roads may be put.” In addition, nothing in the language mandated “that all public utilities must be installed using the private 6-foot easements running along the north and south borders of the subdivision. Rather, it is the opposite. The plain language of the dedication restricts the use of the easements to utilities. It does not limit the installation of utilities to the private easements.” In his counterclaim, Walby argued that plaintiffs’ contractor (S) “negligently installed the water lines” and proximately caused him damages. The trial court gave multiple reasons for finding no cause of action, including that Walby did not establish that the S “negligently installed the water lines. This finding was not clearly erroneous.” Its finding that the damage to Walby’s private water lines in the excavation process was not due to S’s negligence was also not clearly erroneous. And its finding that “Walby failed to mitigate his damages” was supported by the evidence.