Laserfiche WebLink
��i <br /> .. <br /> . <br /> ,�,zxr::�,.� �� . <br /> "+i,...�H4 wr.Y . . • . <br /> � <br /> e".'� <br /> z � <br /> , �. . . <br /> °R��o@7 $.,qhF <br /> � F� <br /> �1. F , � <br /> ����: T p. <br /> �z.�.,.�.g:: . <br /> :���' �.;.,:,. <br /> ���`� "�"� That when the said Winkler sold the lot to the defendants <br /> ..,� <br /> -� Harren, he granted a 10-foot easement on the south boundar.y of <br /> r�� <br /> �'' the lot now owned by the plaintiffs . This being for access to <br /> Lake Minnetonka. <br /> The deed read in part in the description, "including the <br /> right to construct a dock into the lake adjacent thereto" . <br /> Subsequently, the said Winkler sold• the property subject <br /> to said easement which was of record to the defendants Harren. <br /> That prior to the sale of the properties by said Winkler to <br /> either the plaintiffs or the defendants Harren, the defendant <br /> Lake Minnetonka Conservation District had a duly-promulgated <br /> ordinance of record covering the shore a•rea in question of a <br /> 10-foot setback. <br /> That the defendants Harren have constructed a dock which <br /> would abut an extension of the north boundary of the 10-foot <br /> easement, if extended into the lake. That said dock is built <br /> on an angle an� a portion of it protrudes into the defendant <br /> Lake Minnetonka Conservation District' s setback area. <br /> The sole issue and concern between the plaintiffs and <br /> the defendants Harren is the interpretation of the word <br /> "adjacent" in the deed setting forth the easement. <br /> CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: <br /> The immediate and first interpretation of the term "adja- <br /> cent" would mean an extension of the 10-foot land easement into <br /> the water. In this case, that conclusion cannot be reached, <br /> because the setback ordinance was of record and, thus , of know- <br /> ledge to hoth Winkler and the defendants Harren. <br />