Pipeline easement; Blanket easement; Restrictive covenant; Existing structure; Future construction; Easement interpretation; Landowner’s right to use & enjoy premises; Harmless error; MCR 2.613(A)

The court held that plaintiff’s garage was not subject to the 2019 restrictive covenant and that defendant’s 1936 pipeline easement did not give it the exclusionary rights it claimed. Plaintiff’s property was subject to a 1936 easement for defendant’s pipeline. After plaintiff rebuilt his home following a fire, the parties disputed whether the house and garage encroached on defendant’s rights. The trial court granted summary disposition to plaintiff. On appeal, the court first held that the trial court erred by finding the pipeline’s location could not be determined because the surveys used ground-penetrating radar and calculated distances from the structures, but the error was harmless because defendant did not connect it to a dispositive ruling. The court next held that the garage was not covered by the 2019 restrictive covenant because the covenant’s language that any part of the house “shall not be constructed within 33 feet of the pipeline” referred to “new, future construction, not existing structures[.]” The garage had existed for decades, survived the fire, and nothing in the agreement required plaintiff to relocate existing structures. The court also held that the 1936 easement was a blanket easement because it did not specify dimensions, but that did not give defendant a right to exclude. The easement gave defendant “the right of ingress and egress” to lay, maintain, and operate the pipeline, while the landowner retained the right “to fully use and enjoy the said premises.” Affirmed.