1987-07-20 Letter, Statement of Adverse Claim

Home Browse Search

11411-1-MAx. DAIN .` LIND(;It1.N. I:cu. Donald R. Sjostrom, Esq. July 20, 1987 Paqe 2 understanding has always been and is that her agreement to share her dock is a personal agreement between her and her neighbors, Mr. and Mr— White, and not an easement which would bind any other party. She has no agreement with the claimant at all. It is very clear under Minnesota law, that any correspondence between your client and mine is not an easement unless it is in recordable form, which Mr. white's July 1, 1986, letter is not. It is also clear that any document purporting to be an easement (which that letter does not purport to be) will be strictly construed. See Thompsony. Germania Life Insurance Co., 106 Nw 102 (1966). My client has never intended to grant the easement your Statement refers to, as is further evidenced by her refusal to execute any document evidencing such an easement. Also, Mr. and Mrs. White and the claimant have no claim based on an easement by necessity since the adjoining property has its own lake access. SECOND CLAIM The second claim of the Statement fails to state a claim pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 508.70. It does not allege a "right, title or interest in registered land adverse to the registered owner." It states that the claimant's right to drain its own property has somehow been impeded due to the pond on my client's property. I have discussed this claim with Richard Little, one of the Hennepin County Examiners of Title. He has indicated his agreement that this fails to state a claim. Please contact him If you wish further clarification on this issue. Secondly, the pond to which the statement refers is not located on Lot 2, Block 1, North Arms Estates Third Addition (the House Lot). Rather it is located on Tract F, Registered Land Survey No. 748 (the Pond Lot). Therefore, even if this claim were valid under Minnesota Statutes Section 508.70, it is filed against the wrong parcel of land. Thirdly, my client has been informed that the portion of the Pond Lot on which this pond is located and a significant portion of Mr. White's adjoining property have been designated wetlands by the City of Orono, as shown on the enclosed map. My client was told by Michael Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator for the City of Orono that the City would be opposed to any change to either parcel which would alter these wetlands. Despite this, cry client contacted an engineering firm to determine what could be bone. to -irsin some of this wetland, assuming that the City woul.i approve it. She was informed that the neck of the pond anti the ravine to Lake Minnetonka would have to be dredged five feet deeper and 30 feet