04-18-1994 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

V. L»vrmnc9Court rile No. CT 93-12901 fron this Court declaring the scope of the easenent broad enough to allow Plaintiffs' proposed extension of the roadway. (lit, 5 XI, EX. I 4 J) • AS a result. Plaintiffs have brought this action and now move for suimary judgment. The court may render summary judgment "when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue a 1 to any material fact and that either party is entitled to judgment as a natter of law." Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03; sfifi SjtaniaHl Huiiuck. 318 N.w.2d 240, 242 (Minn. 1982). In deciding the motion, the court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. JA^ A party opposing a notion for summary judgment may not simply rest on the averments of the complaint but must affirmatively demonstrate by affidavit or otherwise that material issues of fact remain to be decided. faKman V. gmiM, 285 N.W.2d 95, 97 (Minn. 1985). Plaintiffs contend that the easement reserved to the Whitmans and subsequently conveyed to Plaintiffs permits them to extend the present roadway into the northern undeveloped portion of Tract E. specifically, Plaintiffs contend that "the whole of Tract E, including the portion extending to the north of the present developed roadway, was intended to be used for driveway and access purposes.” (Pltf.'s Mem. Supp. Sumir. J. at 9). Defendants, on the other hand, contend that they never intended for the northern