Laserfiche WebLink
CONCLUSION <br /> The instrument granting the appurtenant lake access ease- <br /> ment to the Letendre parcel was properly memorialized on the <br /> Certificate of Title. Nothing reflecting the alleged restriction <br /> in favor of the City or Orono keeping said parcel free of ripari- <br /> an rights has ever been memorialized or even reduced to writing. <br /> The only possible factual issue in this case is whether or <br /> not the Petitioners had actual knowledge of the alleged agreement <br /> between Chapman and the City of Orono relative to riparian rights <br /> on the Letendre parcel. The Petitioners have submitted affida- <br /> vits from themselves, backed up by an affidavit of their realtor <br /> and an affidavit of the realtor representing the party they <br /> purchased from stating unequivocally that the Petitioners had no <br /> knowledge of any alleged agreement between Chapman and the City <br /> of Orono nor of any allegation or claim of right of the City of <br /> Orono. The City has submitted nothing in support of their asser- <br /> tion that the petitioners are not good faith purchasers of the <br /> lake access easement. <br /> Clearly this is an appropriate case for summary judgment <br /> and Petitioners Motion for an order dismissing the answer of the <br /> City of Orono should be granted. <br /> Respectfully submitted, SCHOLLE AND SCHOLLE, LTD. <br /> Dated: November 18, 1986 BY <br /> BRADLEY N. BEISEL #6191 <br /> Attorney for Petitioners <br /> 1530 Pillsbury Center <br /> 200 South Sixth Street <br /> Minneapolis, MN 55440 <br /> Phone: ( 612) 338-1330 <br /> -8- <br />