Whether parties had a right to install a water pipe under a private road; Easement scope; Applicability of acquiescence; Waiver; Ingress & egress purposes; “Beach” access

As to plaintiffs’ claim that they had a right to install a water pipe under a private road, the court held that the trial court erred in its acquiescence findings, and in applying the waiver doctrine to extinguish defendants’ rights to object to the installation. But the trial court did not err in defining “beach” as used in the Plat at issue and in granting plaintiffs the right to use the part of the beach that runs on or next to defendants' properties. The dispute concerned parcels of land owned by the parties. The trial court granted plaintiffs declaratory relief, “ruling that they had the right to install the pipe as well as have access to the disputed area of the Beach.” On appeal, the court noted that they did not include an acquiescence claim in their amended complaint, and concluded that the doctrine did not apply here. Thus, it vacated the “portions of the trial court’s judgment purporting to decide the scope of the Cottage Lane easements” based on acquiescence. The court also agreed with defendants that the “easements should be restricted to ingress-and-egress purposes only.” There was “no mention of the installation of utilities in any of the[] documents acknowledging the existence of the easement.” The court also noted that the “trial court made the specific finding that the Cottage Lane easements only authorized ingress-and-egress at the time of its creation, and that purpose should be enforced.” The court concluded that the fact defendants’ “may have acted beyond the scope of the easements by causing internet cable to run under or across Cottage Lane to their lakefront property” their conduct “did not unilaterally expand the scope of the easement.” In addition, it “did not extinguish their property rights and ability to object to uses beyond the intended scope of the easement.” But as to the meaning of “beach,” which was not defined in the Plat, “expert testimony supported the trial court’s determination that ‘the Beach’ should be defined as the ‘the sandy and pebbly area between the water’s edge and the line of vegetation or the bluff, which ever [was] farther east.’” The court held that the trial court did not clearly err in “defining ‘the Beach’ as the expanse of sand or pebbles along the shore of Lake Huron on or next to” defendants-O’Keefes properties and in “finding that plaintiffs had the right to utilize the beach area adjacent to or on” those properties. Vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.