05-09-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Vhitmta V. t«vr«ac» Court ril* NO. CT 93-129QI fro* this Court declaring the scope of the ease»ent broad enough to allow Plaintiffs' proposed extension of the roadway. (14... 1 *i. EX. I 4 J). XS a result, plaintiff* have brought this action and now move for summary judgment. The court nay 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 as to any material fact and that either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03; gronAftfal nulluck. 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 nonliving party. Id-. A party opposing a motion 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. EaXnan Yt BrUtgftgf 285 N.w.2d 95, 97 (Minn. 1985). Plaintiffs contend that the easement reserved to the Whitmans and subsc^u ntly conveyed to Plaintiffs permits them to extend the present .ftAway 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. Summ. J. at 9). Defendants, on the other hand, contend that they never intended for the northern