Laserfiche WebLink
irMCMfl r. twrmact <br />court rU« Mo. CT 93-12901 <br />spocific facts showing that thera is a ganuina issue for trial. <br />Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.05. Defendant Janes Lawrence's affidavit does <br />not refer to any discussions between Defendants and the Whitaans as <br />to the geographic scope of the easenent, nor does La%nrence set <br />any agreenent between Defendants and the Whitnans as to the <br />possible restriction of the easement's geographical scope. <br />Indeed, Defendants do not dispute Edith Whilaaan's statement <br />that: <br />we had no intention of limiting in any way the use that <br />we could maXe of the Tract E roadway, nor vag gVLgh-ft <br />restriction ever discussed between us and the La%nrences» <br />Moreover, ny husband and I never intended to limit any <br />possible future uses, development or subdivision of any <br />of our other tracts of land which were not the subject of <br />that deed, nor were such matters ever discussed with thfii <br />Lawrences. .• • <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. 1 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 may <br />subdivide Tract A and subsequently use the easement over Tract E to <br />serve the subdivided lots. Defendants, however, argue that