Laserfiche WebLink
Utility Easement, Doc. No. 998133. <br />19. Petitioners acquired the utility easement over Tract G from the Dunns at the same <br />time they purchased Tract H from another party. Charles Van Eeckhout testified at the <br />hearing that at the time he acquired Tract H and the utility easement he believed Tract H <br />could have been subdivided into 20 parcels and he had electric utilities installed to serve <br />that number. Defendant (Dunn) did not testify and no other evidence was offered on her <br />behalf disputing Mr. Van Eeckhout's statements regarding the utility easement. <br />Defendant appears to have abandoned her request for a determination that the utility <br />easement may serve only a single residence. <br />20. Considerations similar to those stated in Memorandum paragraphs 16 and 17, <br />above, lead to the conclusion that that if Tract H is subdivided the owners of the separate <br />parcels may use Tract G for the installation and maintenance of utilities. <br />Granting Rights in the Easements. <br />21. Based on the evidence at hearing, as it relates to the pleadings contained in the <br />Petition and Answer filed in the matter, the Petitioners have established that they are <br />entitled to the relief requested in the Petition. However, as noted in Memorandum <br />paragraph 14, above, at the hearing the Defendant raised an additional matter: may <br />Petitioners grant rights in the driveway and utility easements to third parties. <br />22. As far as the Defendant's assertions (that rights in the easements cannot be <br />granted to third parties) may affect the rights of the Assignee in the Partial Assignment <br />of Easement filed as Doc. No. 1006708, (see Memorandum paragraph 9, above), the issue <br />is not proper for adjudication because the Assignee in the Assignment (Minneapolis Gas <br />Company or its successor) is not a party to this proceeding. Defendant could have, but <br />did not, seek to have the Assignee added as a party. <br />1 1