Little v. Kin

Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan 48909
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
C h i e f J u s ti c e J u s t ic e s
Maura D. Corrigan Michael F. Cavanagh

Opinion
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Clifford W. Taylor
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FILED JULY 9, 2003

ROBERT LITTLE and

BARBARA LITTLE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v No. 121037

STEVEN KIN, ROSALYN KIN, THOMAS

TRIVAN, and DARLENE TRIVAN,

Defendants-Appellees.

___________________________________

BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH

MEMORANDUM OPINION

We granted leave to appeal to consider the scope of

defendants’ easement “for access to and use of the riparian

rights to Pine Lake.” 467 Mich 898 (2002). Having reviewed

the issues involved, we agree with the judgment of the Court

of Appeals.1

1
249 Mich App 502; 644 NW2d 375 (2002).

 However, we write briefly to clarify the trial court’s

duties on remand.

First, the trial court must determine whether the

easement contemplates the construction and maintenance of a

dock by defendants. In answering this question, the trial

court shall begin by examining the text of the easement.

Where the language of a legal instrument is plain and

unambiguous, it is to be enforced as written and no further

inquiry is permitted. See, e.g., Gawrylak v Cowie, 350 Mich

679, 683; 86 NW2d 809 (1957). If the text of the easement is

ambiguous, extrinsic evidence may be considered by the trial

court in order to determine the scope of the easement.2

If the easement grants defendants the right to construct

or maintain a dock, the trial court must determine whether the

particular dock at issue is permissible under the law of

easements. Under our well-established easement jurisprudence,

the dominant estate may not make improvements to the servient

estate if such improvements are unnecessary for the effective

use of the easement or they unreasonably burden the servient

tenement. Crew’s Die Casting Corp v Davidow, 369 Mich 541;

2
We note that the Court of Appeals stated that “in

deciding the scope of defendants’ rights under the easement,

the trial court must consider the language in the easement

itself and the circumstances existing at the time of the grant

. . . .” 249 Mich App 514 (emphasis added). This directive is

clearly inconsistent with the well-established principles of

legal interpretation as stated above and is thus incorrect.

2

120 NW2d 238 (1963); Unverzagt v Miller, 306 Mich 260, 265; 10

NW2d 849 (1943); Mumrow v Riddle, 67 Mich App 693, 700; 242

NW2d 489 (1976). Accordingly, if the trial court concludes

that the easement grants defendants the right to construct or

maintain a dock, it must then determine (1) whether the dock

is necessary for defendants’ effective use of their easement

and (2) whether the dock unreasonably burdens plaintiffs’

servient estate.

To the extent consistent with this opinion, the judgment

of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The case is remanded to

the trial court for further proceedings.

Maura D. Corrigan

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Clifford W. Taylor

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

KELLY, J.

I concur in the result only.

Marilyn Kelly

3