Laserfiche WebLink
741 N.W.2d 136, 139 (Minn. App. 2007). A fact is material if its resolution will affect the <br /> outcome of a case. O'Malley v. Ulland Bros., 549 N.W.2d 889, 892 (Minn. 1996). <br /> The burden is on the moving party to show the absence of an issue of material fact. <br /> Anderson v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, 693 N.W.2d 181, 191 (Minn.2005). In opposing <br /> the motion, the nonmoving party cannot rely upon mere averments or denials set forth in its <br /> pleadings, but must present specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Minn. R. <br /> Civ. P. 56.05. The Court must view all evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving <br /> party and must resolve all factual inferences against the moving parties. Celotex Corp. v. <br /> Catreett, 577 U.S. 317 (1986); Gradjelick v. Hance, 646 N.W.2d 225, 231 (Minn. 2002); <br /> Grondahl v. Bulluck, 318 N.W.2d 240 (Minn. 1982). <br /> III. Analysis <br /> a. Summary of arguments <br /> Plaintiffs argue that the description of an easement in a deed that transferred the title of <br /> their property subject to that easement on May 25, 1948, did not create a valid easement. <br /> Plaintiffs contend secondly that if such an easement was validly created, it was not appurtenant <br /> to the grantors' land, and has expired. Plaintiffs finally argue that if an appurtenant easement <br /> were created, it has been altered or extinguished by a Court Order or other contract prior to their <br /> taking title. <br /> Defendants assert that the 1948 Deed created a valid appurtenant easement burdening <br /> Plaintiffs' property for the benefit of Defendants' property. Secondly, Defendants argue that no <br /> legally binding action has altered or extinguished that easement. <br /> b. Plaintiffs' claim that the 1948 Deed did not create a valid easement. <br /> 1. Easement creation. <br /> 5 <br />