My question involves real estate located in the State of: Michigan
Little Back Story: My parents purchased the involved property in 1974. the property is situated on a lake and prior to our purchase the former property owner had a two track drive on backside of property that a few land users used to get to their cabins. After my parents purchased the property they wanted to fence it all in. The owners of the property in the back filed a suit and an agreement was reached with the other party and with the court for easement.
In 1986 the following easement was granted:
Plaintiffs shall have over and across the real property of Defendants, commencing at XXXX rd, thence westerly and northerly along and upon those roadways now in existence or upon such other roads as the parties herto may hereafter agree upon and such roads shall be reasonably adequate for the use and passage of motor vehicles.
It is further ordered and adjudged said easement shall be appurtenant to the land of the Plaintiffs ans shall run with the land.
It is further ordered and adjudged Plaintiffs shall not allow said easement to be used by oil tanker trucks or oil and gas exploration equipment to so far as the same is located on defendants lands.
It is further ordered and adjudged the said easement shall terminate at such time, if ever, a valid, legal, appurtenant and recorded easement for ingress and egress arises from the west by a public road or a recorded easement leading to a public road from and to plaintiffs lands and at such time as there shall be, upon plaintiffs lands, a suitable bridge or crossing across XXXX creek.
It is further ordered and adjudged the burden imposed upon defendants lands by said easement shall not be increased without the consent of defendants or their successors.
It is further ordered and adjudged a certified copy of this consent judgment shall be record with the register of deeds, county of XXXX, state of Michigan.
Now to my issue:
The drive has been in the same condition since when it was put in, and since the easement was granted in 1986.
Last week the individuals granted the easement, hired a company to come in and grade out the land owners two track drive and bring in gravel. they did not contact the property owners to get authorization to do so. They also allowed the contractor to access the land owners well property drive to get the trucks in to deliver the gravel and equipment, in doing so they tore up the seeded area by one of the wells.
Prior to the easement, the plaintiffs had a few summer cabins on their property, Since the easement was granted, the owners of the back property have build large houses, and have allowed not just their immediate family, but friends, and renters to use our easement drive.
The land owners strive to keep their property as natural as possible to the point that their drive to their housing is also a two track. Their fear is that the plaintiffs if not stopped now will want to pave the easement driveway.
What are the Defendants options to put a stop to this improvement? Does the term "said easement shall not be increased without consent of the defendent" mean they need authorization to make any changes to the two-track drive? Can request the plaintiffs to remove the gravel and restore the drive to the original condition? Can they remove the gravel that was placed themselves?
The said creek is now dried up, what options do they have to force the plaintiffs to put the bridge in to use their own property for a road?
Sincerely hope you can help :confused::mad:
Denovo
Little Back Story: My parents purchased the involved property in 1974. the property is situated on a lake and prior to our purchase the former property owner had a two track drive on backside of property that a few land users used to get to their cabins. After my parents purchased the property they wanted to fence it all in. The owners of the property in the back filed a suit and an agreement was reached with the other party and with the court for easement.
In 1986 the following easement was granted:
Quote:
Plaintiffs shall have over and across the real property of Defendants, commencing at XXXX rd, thence westerly and northerly along and upon those roadways now in existence or upon such other roads as the parties herto may hereafter agree upon and such roads shall be reasonably adequate for the use and passage of motor vehicles.
It is further ordered and adjudged said easement shall be appurtenant to the land of the Plaintiffs ans shall run with the land.
It is further ordered and adjudged Plaintiffs shall not allow said easement to be used by oil tanker trucks or oil and gas exploration equipment to so far as the same is located on defendants lands.
It is further ordered and adjudged the said easement shall terminate at such time, if ever, a valid, legal, appurtenant and recorded easement for ingress and egress arises from the west by a public road or a recorded easement leading to a public road from and to plaintiffs lands and at such time as there shall be, upon plaintiffs lands, a suitable bridge or crossing across XXXX creek.
It is further ordered and adjudged the burden imposed upon defendants lands by said easement shall not be increased without the consent of defendants or their successors.
It is further ordered and adjudged a certified copy of this consent judgment shall be record with the register of deeds, county of XXXX, state of Michigan.
The drive has been in the same condition since when it was put in, and since the easement was granted in 1986.
Last week the individuals granted the easement, hired a company to come in and grade out the land owners two track drive and bring in gravel. they did not contact the property owners to get authorization to do so. They also allowed the contractor to access the land owners well property drive to get the trucks in to deliver the gravel and equipment, in doing so they tore up the seeded area by one of the wells.
Prior to the easement, the plaintiffs had a few summer cabins on their property, Since the easement was granted, the owners of the back property have build large houses, and have allowed not just their immediate family, but friends, and renters to use our easement drive.
The land owners strive to keep their property as natural as possible to the point that their drive to their housing is also a two track. Their fear is that the plaintiffs if not stopped now will want to pave the easement driveway.
What are the Defendants options to put a stop to this improvement? Does the term "said easement shall not be increased without consent of the defendent" mean they need authorization to make any changes to the two-track drive? Can request the plaintiffs to remove the gravel and restore the drive to the original condition? Can they remove the gravel that was placed themselves?
The said creek is now dried up, what options do they have to force the plaintiffs to put the bridge in to use their own property for a road?
Sincerely hope you can help :confused::mad:
Denovo
Use and Enforcement: Can the Holder of a Right-of-Way Easement Grade and Gravel the Drive
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire