Laserfiche WebLink
VAiCaafl V. Lsvr*nc0 <br />Court Pil* Mo. CT 93-12901 <br />roadway over Tract E would not be limited to a single residence on <br />the then existing tracts. Rather, the clear language of the 1978 <br />easement agreement allows use of the easement by subdivided lots <br />within each of the dominant tracts. As this is also consistent <br />with existing Minnesota law. Plaintiffs may extend the present <br />roadway to serve subdivided lots within Tract A. <br />For the foregoing reasons. Plaintiffs motion for summary <br />judgment is granted. Plaintiffs may extend the current roadway <br />over Tract E to serve subdivided lots contained in the northern <br />portion of Tract A. Furthermore, there is nothing in the 1976 deed <br />or 1978 easement agreement which prevents Plaintiffs from <br />subdividing their property <br />D.C.O.