1987-07-30 District Court Order - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

p. 2 That when the said Winkler sold the lot to the defendants llarren, lie granted a 10 -foot easement on the south boundary of the lot now owned by the plaintiffs. This being for access to Lake Minnetonka. The deed read in part in the description, "including the right to construct a dock into the lake adjacent thereto". Subsequently, the said Winkler sold -the property subject to said easement which was of record to the defendants Harren. That prior to the sale of the properties by said Winkler to either the plaintiffs or the defendants Harren, the defendant Lake Minnetonka Conservation District had a duly -promulgated ordinance of record covering the shore area in question of a 10 -foot setback. That the defendants Harren have constructed a dock which would abut an extension of the north boundary of the 10 -foot easement, if extended into the lake. That said dock is built on an angle anq a portion of it protrudes into the defendant Lake Minnetonka Conservation District's setback area. The sole issue and concern between the plaintiffs and the defendants Harren is the interpretation of the word "adjacent" in the deed setting forth the easement. COIJCLUSIO14S OF LAW: The immediate and first interpretation of the term "adja- cent" would mean an extension of the 10 -foot land easement into the water. In this case, that conclusion cannot be reached, because the setback ordinance was of record and, thus, of know- ledge to both Winkler and the u4efendants Harren.