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