Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-07-30 District Court OrderRLC:LI V — JUL 40A 1987 DISTRICT COURT STATE OF MINNESOTA L.M.C.D. FOL1,RT11 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN- - -L 7 - •- Z O -� - u= - - - - - - - - - _ - David Dianis and Karen Dianis, Plaintiffs, 1 Ca No. MX 67-6525 1 -vs- � FINDINGS OF FACT Lee C. Harren and Juletta M. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Harren, and Lake Minnetonka ORDER Conservation District, Defendants- 1 The above-captioned matter came on for hearing before the undersigned on July 10, 1987 on motions for summary judgment by all parties. The plaintiff appearing by C. Scott Massie, Esq; the defendants kiarren appearing by Carter DeLaittre, Esq.; and the defendant Lake Minnetonka Conservation District by Charles LeFevre, Esq. FINDINGS OF FACT: The plaintiffs own certain residential property on the shore of Lake Minnetonka, more particularly Stubbs Bay- That the defendants Barren own property adjacent and to the rear of the plaintiffs of which no part is Lake Minne- tonka shoreline. of both the plaintiffs and defendants That the property Harren are residential properties and were purchased from one Christopher Winkler. Said Winkler was authorized to subdivide the property into the pieces now owned by the plaintiffs and the defendants Harren. p. 2 That when the said Winkler sold the lot to the defendants llarren, lie granted a 10 -foot easement on the south boundary of the lot now owned by the plaintiffs. This being for access to Lake Minnetonka. The deed read in part in the description, "including the right to construct a dock into the lake adjacent thereto". Subsequently, the said Winkler sold -the property subject to said easement which was of record to the defendants Harren. That prior to the sale of the properties by said Winkler to either the plaintiffs or the defendants Harren, the defendant Lake Minnetonka Conservation District had a duly -promulgated ordinance of record covering the shore area in question of a 10 -foot setback. That the defendants Harren have constructed a dock which would abut an extension of the north boundary of the 10 -foot easement, if extended into the lake. That said dock is built on an angle anq a portion of it protrudes into the defendant Lake Minnetonka Conservation District's setback area. The sole issue and concern between the plaintiffs and the defendants Harren is the interpretation of the word "adjacent" in the deed setting forth the easement. COIJCLUSIO14S OF LAW: The immediate and first interpretation of the term "adja- cent" would mean an extension of the 10 -foot land easement into the water. In this case, that conclusion cannot be reached, because the setback ordinance was of record and, thus, of know- ledge to both Winkler and the u4efendants Harren. 1 .{ P. 3 It can be without question that the property was sold by said Winkler to the defendants Marren with the assurance and understanding that there would be access to Lake Minnetonka and the right to build a dock. That this would have to be in compliance with the ordinances, rules and regulations of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District which are not i unreasonable. Thus, the only interpretation which may be given is that the defendants Harrell are permitted to construct a dock which would abut the extension of the north boundary line, if extended into the lake, of the abovesaid easement. That said dock cannot protrude in any way into the 10 -foot setback area. That the defendants Harren are entitled to cross the property Of the plaintiffs to go from their land easement to their dock. ORDER: That the notion for summary judment of the plaintiffs is hereby denied. That the motion of the defendant Lake Minnetonke ron"rvation District is hereby granted, and that the defendants Harren must remove that portion of their dock which protrudes into the 10 -foot setback area. That the defendants Marren are hereby allowed to con- struct a dock which would abut the extension of the north boundary line of the 10 -foot easement into Lake Minnetonka and have reasonable crossing access of the plaintiffs' land p. 4 to reach the dock from the easement of recor6. LET SAID ORDER BE ENTERED ACCORDINr.LY. Dated thi day of July. 4701.