Laserfiche WebLink
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />t-'S <br />■( <br />: t <br />■J <br />f ,I <br />1. A court may refer a case to an examiner to make a report of its findings. After <br />filing the report, the court may order such other or further hearing of the cause <br />before the court. Minn. Stat. § 50S.20. <br />2. In non-jury actions, the court shall accept the referee’s findings of fact unless <br />clearly erroneous. Minn. R. Civ. P. 53.05(b). <br />3. The district court may vacate the findings of the referee when the findings arc <br />“manifestly and palpably contrary to the weight of the evidence." Prior Lake <br />State Bank V. National Sur. Corp., 248 Minn. 383, 80N.W.2d 612 (1957). <br />The Report of the Title Examiner found that the utility easement is construed to <br />permit Tract H to be subdivided into additional, residential parcels. This Court <br />finds that the existing utility easement authorizes only installation and <br />maintenance of utilities to serve a single residence on Tract H, which is a limited <br />utility access. <br />v^. Petitioners’ intention to use the existing utilities easement to subdivide Tract H is <br />beyond the scope of the easement. Tlie Referee’s Findings with respect to the <br />utility casement were erroneous as these Findings go against the weight of the <br />evidence. <br />s/^^' The Report of the Examiner of Titles found the existing driveway casement <br />authorizes Petitioners’ to construct, reconstruct, maintain and repair a driveway <br />on Tract G, and grants Petitioners authorization in the fonn of grants or <br />assignments to third-parties by Petitioners. Petitioners’ right to transfer existing