Laserfiche WebLink
V. L»vT9nc»Court. File No. CT 93-12901specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. <br />Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.05. Defendant James Laurence's affidavit does <br />not refer to any discussions between Defendants and the Whitmans as <br />to the geographic scope of the easement, nor does Lawrence set <br />forth any agreement between Defendants and the Whitmans as to the <br />possible restriction of the easement's geographical scope. <br />indeed. Defendants do not dispute Edith Whitman's statement <br />that: <br />we had no intention of limiting^i^^^^^ <br />we could make the T.avrences. <br />tystriotjon ever intended to limit ISiy <br />Moreover, my husband ana i subdivision of any <br />possible future uses, w«e not the subject of Sf our other tracts of land which were not „jth the <br />that deed, ^n-r were siirh patters evey discu^- - - - <br />j^awrences • • • • <br />(Edith Whitman Aff. 1 VI, (emphasis supplied). Further, it is <br />undisputed that Plaintiffs extended the roadway over a portion of <br />Tract E in 1986 to access their home on Tract A. (John Whitman <br />Aff i VIII). in response to the facts presented by Plaintiffs, <br />Defendants have not presented specific facts which would <br />demonstrate that there is a genuine issue for trial as to the <br />alleged ambiguity of the easement documents. Accordingly, summary <br />judgment in favor of Plaintiffs as to the geographic scope of the <br />easement over Tract E is appropriate. <br />Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment that they nay <br />subdivide Tract A and subsequently use the easement over Tract E to <br />serve the subdivided lots. Defendants, however, argue that