Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

language in the 1948 Deed abundantly satisfies this, reserving an easement"in the grantors herein, their assigns, the survivor of said parties, and the heirs and assigns of the survivor." This is the same language that the 1948 Deed uses to transfer ownership of the property to the grantees in fee simple. The valid easement created by the 1948 Deed was `reserved' in the grantors and their `heirs and assigns.' By the legally binding interpretation of the plain language of the 1948 Deed, the easement created was appurtenant to Lots 22-33, and that portion of Lot 21 not deeded to the grantee. Therefore the 1948 Deed created an appurtenant easement, burdening Lot 20, for the benefit of Lots 21-33, as a matter of law. 2. The circumstances surrounding the 1948 Deed. The Minnesota Supreme Court has long held that an easement"is never construed to be in gross-that is, personal-when it can fairly be construed to be appurtenant to the land." Callen, at 974. The binding rule is "[i]n the partition of land,with a permission for a way over one tract for the use of the owner of another, the right would be taken and presumed to be appurtenant."Id. The 1948 Deed was granted in the partition of land. The grantors otherwise land-locked the remainder of their property on the peninsula. A valid driveway easement was reserved in the Deed. The purpose of the easement is stated explicitly in the Deed: "for driveway purposes." This easement can be fairly construed to be appurtenant to the grantors' estate. The easement provides the only way over Lot 20 for the grantors who owned Lots 21-33. No material issue of fact exists, and the easement created in the 1948 Deed is an appurtenant easement as a matter of law. d. Plaintiffs' request for time for continued discovery. 1. Plaintiffs' notice of the easement. 11