Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

creation of the servitude, and to carry out the purpose for which it was created." Rest. 3d. Prop., Servitudes § 4.1(1); see, e.g. Bergh and Mission Farms Inc. v. Great Lakes Transmission Co., 565 N.W.2d 23, 26 (Minn. 1997); Braaten v. Jarvi, 347 N.W. 2d 279, 282 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). However, when the language in the instrument is "fully clear and unambiguous,"parole evidence cannot introduced to contradict the intent of the parties. Callen v. Hause, 91 Minn. 270, 272, 97 N.W. 973, 974 (Minn. 1904); citing Atkins v. Bordman, 2 Mete. 457, 37 Am. Dec. 100,; see also, Minneapolis Athletic, at 258. In this case, the 1948 Deed conveys Lot 20 "subject to and reserving in the grantors herein... an easement for driveway purposes."The easement is then laid out in specific directions and dimensions that connect Baldur Park Road to the part of Lot 21 retained by the grantors. The easement covers the driveway that already existed on the land. The easement is a reasonable size and shape, and serves the function of a driveway. The description is fully clear and unambiguous. In the final paragraph of the 1948 Deed, grantors promised to "Warrant and Defend" grantees' claim of title against any legal claim, "subject to incumberances... hereinbefore mentioned." The driveway easement is the only encumbrance before mentioned in the 1948 Deed. Here again, the 1948 Deed is clear and unambiguous as to the intention of the parties to record on the title of Lot 20 that it is subject to the driveway easement described. Taking the 1948 Deed as a whole, there is no ambiguity about the dimensions and purposes of the driveway easement, nor that the driveway easement was intended to be created by the document. By the clear and unambiguous language of the instrument, the intention of the parties to the conveyance was to newly create an easement across Lot 20. No question of fact remains as to the intention of the parties to the 1948 Deed. 7