Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout#04-2998 Easement ProceedingsANDERSON DOVE FRETLAND & VANVALKENBURG STEVEN A ANDERSON LAURA K. FRETLAND PAUL D. DOVE • JANE VANVALKENBURG OF COUNSEL RICHARD J. SCHIEFFER • CERTIFIED />SA REAL PROPERTY LAW SPECIALIST BY THE MINNESOTA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION Thomas J. Barrett HINSHAVV & CULBERTSON 222 So. 9th Street, Ste. 3100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5881 CEDAR LAKE ROAD MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55416-1492 952-545-9000 FAX: 952-545-1793 FAX: 952-542-92 I 0 800-343-4545 E-MAIL: adfw@adfwlaw.com December 5, 2003 Re: Van EeckhouUDunn Easement Proceedings Our File No. 10333-98001 Dear Mr. Barrett: PARALEGALS LAURA]. LINS CARMEN M. POFERL 413 SOUTH RUM RIVER DRIVE, SUITE 6 PRINCETON, MN 5537 I 763-633-2214 FAX: 763-389-5506 101 MAIN STREET SOUTH, SUITE 201 HUTCHINSON, MN 55350 320-587-7575 FAX: 320-587-4096 Enclosed for your information is a courtesy copy of the Examiner's Report in the above captioned matter which was filed on December 2, 2003. Please give me a call if you have any questions in this regard. Sincerely, ANDERSON DOVE FRETLAND & VANVALKENBURG, P.L.L.P. Richard J. Schieffer RJS:rb Enclosure cc: Charles & Sue Van Eeckhout STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN BY In the Matter of the Petition of Charles E. Van Eeckhout and Sue L. Van Eeckhout For an Order Construing an Easement Over Tract G, Registered Land Survey No. 352 REPORT OF EXAMINER INCLUDING FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDED ORDER TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF HENNEPIN COUNTY: The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on July 23, 2003 at 9:00 a.m., pursuant to an Order of Reference dated May 23, 2003, made by the Honorable Ann Alton, in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 508.20 and Rule 53.05, Minn. R. Civ. P., referring the case to the Examiner of Titles to hear and determine the issues, make Findings of Fact and Suggested Conclusions of Law and report the same to the Court. Richard J. Schieffer appeared as attorney for the petitioners, and Jeremy S. Steiner appeared as attorney for defendant, Mary Ann Dunn. Your Examiner, having received the evidence submitted by the parties and having considered the arguments made by counsel for the parties, now makes the following Findings of Fact, Suggested Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order, to wit: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That on November 5, 1999, the Registrar of Titles entered Certificate of Title No. 1035711 to Sue L. Van Eeckhout, married to Charles E. Van Eeckhout, for land described as follows: Tract H, Registered Land Survey No. 352. 2. That said Certificate of Title contains the following recital: Together with an easement for driveway purposes over Tract G, Registered Land Survey No. 352, as contained in deed Doc. No. 432783. 3. That on August 23, 2002, the Registrar of Titles entered Certificate of Title No. 1090376 to Mary Ann Dunn, unmarried, for land described as follows: Tract G, Registered Land Survey No. 352. 4. That said Certificate of Title No. 10903 76 contains the following recital: Subject to an easement for driveway purposes over Tract G, Registered Land Survey No. 352, as contained in deed Doc. No. 432783. 5. That said Certificates of Title Nos. 1035711 and 1090376 both contain a memorial of Doc. No. 998133, an easement for the installation and maintenance of utilities over said Tract G. 6. That said easements filed as Doc. Nos. 432783 and 998133 are appurtenant to and for the benefit of said Tract H, Registered Land Survey No. 352. 7. That said easements filed as Doc. Nos. 432783 and 998133 contain no express or implied restrictions concerning the extent to which the easements may be used in the future. 8. That the parties who created said easements filed as Doc. Nos. 432783 and 998133 could have reasonably foreseen that Tract H would be subdivided into multiple parcels at some time in the future. 9. That the owners of said Tract H have not abandoned any part of said easements filed as Doc. Nos. 432783 and 998133. 2 CONCLUSIONS OF LA \V 1. That said easement filed as Doc. No. 432783 is construed as follmvs: a. the owners of said Tract H and their successors, assigns, agents and invitees may use said Tract G for driveway purposes, which use is not limited to the location of the present driveway on said Tract G; b. if said Tract H is divided into separately owned parcels, the owners of said separate parcels and their successors, assigns, agents and invitees may use said Tract G for driveway purposes, which use is not limited to the location of the present driveway on said Tract G; c. the owners of said Tract H may authorize agents to constrnct, reconstrnct, maintain and repair a driveway on said Tract G, and the authorization may be in the form of grants or assignments, executed and acknowledged by said owners, filed with the Registrar of Titles and entered as memorials on the Certificate of Title for said Tract G. 2. That said easement filed as Doc. No. 998133 is constrned as follows: a. the owners of said Tract H and their successors, assigns, agents and invitees may use said Tract G for the installation and maintenance of utilities; b. if said Tract His divided into separately owned parcels, the owners of said separate parcels and their successors, assigns, agents and invitees may use said Tract G for the installation and maintenance of utilities; c. the owners of said Tract H may authorize agents to install and maintain utilities on said Tract G, and the authorization may be in the form of grants or assignments, executed and acknowledged by said owners, filed with the 3 Registrar of Titles and entered as memorials on the Certificate of Title for said Tract G. K.l!.kUlVllVlliND.ti,U UKU.Ji;K Your Examiner therefore recommends that this Court enter an Order m accordance with the Conclusions of Law as follows: That the Registrar of Titles, upon the filing with the Registrar of a certified copy of this Order: 1. show by memorial on Certificates of Title Nos. 1035711 and 1090376 that the easements filed as Doc. Nos. 432783 and 998133 have been construed in Case No. A-31531; 2. in future Certificates of Title issued for the lands described in said Certificates of Title Nos. 103 5 711 and 10903 7 6, ( a) add to the recitals regarding Doc. No. 432783 the statement: "as construed in Case No. A-31532 (Order Doc. No. [Registrar to insert document number assigned to this Order])"; (b) add to the memorials regarding Doc. No. 998133 the statement: "as construed in Case No. A-31532 (Order Doc. No. [Registrar to insert document number assigned to this Order])"; and (c) delete the mem01ial of this Order. That the Court retains jurisdiction over injunctive matters, costs and disbursements contained in the pleadings on file in this matter for determination at a later time. 4 MEMORANDUM In trod ucti on. Petitioner, Sue L. Van Eeckhout, wife of Petitioner, Charles E. Van Eeckhout, is the fee owner of a parcel of land the City of Orono legally described as Tract H, Registered Land Survey No. 352. The Petitioners have been attempting to subdivide Tract H into several lots; and they believe that a Court Order construing their easement rights over Tract G, Registered Land Survey No. 352 would be useful in obtaining city approval of the subdivision. Defendant, May Ann Dunn, on the other hand apparently opposes the Petitioners' subdivision plans and has filed an Answer in these proceedings which requests a Court Order construing the easements in such a way as to effectively prevent the subdivision of Tract H (at least without the grant of additional rights or easements by Mary Ann Dunn). Historical Background. 1. Franc P. Daniels registered title to a large parcel of land in Section 34, Township 118, Range 23 and Section 3, Township 117, Range 23 in Torrens Case No. 11775. Pursuant to the Decree of Registration, First Certificate of Title No. 217132, dated July 20, 1954, was issued for the land. The First Certificate of Title contained a recital stating that the land was "subject to an obligation to convey by Wananty Deed to Olive C. Case, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances" a portion of the land, described in the recital by metes and bounds. The First Certificate of Title also contained a recital stating that the land was "subject to an obligation to convey to Olive C. Case, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances (the full consideration for the conveyance having already been paid to Franc P. Daniels by Olive C. Case) an easement for driveway purposes over a strip of land 40 feet wide" described in the recital by metes and bounds. 2. Registered Land Survey No. 352, dated August 16, 1954, was filed August 24, 1954 as Doc. No. 432712 and a memorial of it was entered on First Certificate of Title 5 No. 21 7132. Tract H of the registered land survey matched the description of the land which was to be conveyed by Warranty Deed as noted in ~1emorandum paragraph 1, above, and Tract G matched the description of the land o\·er which an easement for driveway purposes was to be conveyed. A copy of Registered Land Survey No. 352, received at the hearing as Exhibit 16, is attached to this Memorandum. 3. Franc P. Daniels and Marion P. Daniels, his wife, executed a Warranty Deed in favor of Olive C. Case, dated July 19, 1954 and filed August 24, 1954 as Doc. No. 432783, which contained the following description: Tract H, Registered Land Survey Number 352 Files of Registrar of Titles County of Hennepin. Together with an Easement for Driveway purposes over Tract G, said Registered Land Survey. Pursuant to the Warranty Deed, the Registrar of Titles issued new Certificate of Title No. 219093 to Olive C. Case for Tract H. The new Certificate of Title included the following recital: Together with an easement for driveway purposes over Tract G, Registered Land Survey Ko. 352, as contained in deed Doc. No. 432783, Files of Registrar of Titles. In addition, the Registrar issued Residue Certificate of Title No. 2199094 to Franc P. Daniels for Tract G and other land not conveyed to Olive C. Case. The new Residue Certificate of Title included the following recital: Subject to an easement for driveway purposes over Tract G, Registered Land Survey No. 352, as contained in deed Doc. No. 432783, Files of Registrar of Titles. The recitals regarding "an obligation to convey," which had appeared on the First Certificate of Title, were not carried forward onto the ne\v certificates of title. Presumably the Registrar of Titles thought deed Doc. No. 432783 satisfied the obligations to convey land and easement. 4. Franc P. Daniels by Warranty Deed dated December 29, 1960 and filed December 30, 1960 as Doc. No. 64 7217 conveyed to John F. Dunn and Mary A. Dunn, husband and wife as joint tenants, the following described land: Tract F, Registered Land Sun1ey No. 352, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, . . . together with a non-exclusive easement for roadway purposes in, over and 6 upon Tract G, Registered Land Survey No. 352, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County. Pursuant to the Warranty Deed, the Registrar of Titles issued Certificate of Title No. 325626 for Tract F and included the following recital: Together with a non-exclusive easement for roadway purposes in, over and upon Tract G, Registered Land Survey No. 352, as shown in deed Doc. No. 647217, Files of the Registrar of Titles However, the Registrar of Titles did not enter a memorial of Doc. No. 64 7217 on the Certificate of Title for said Tract G. The failure to do so was probably an error or oversight on the part of the Registrar of Titles. 5. The Dunns caused Registered Land Survey No. 1022 to be filed October 31, 1961 as Doc. No. 673645 and entered as a memorial on Certificate of Title No. 325626. Thereby Tract F, Registered Land Survey No. 352 became subdivided into Tracts A, B, C and D, Registered Land Survey No. 1022. 6. Franc P. Daniels by Warranty Deed dated December 31, 1962 and filed January 4, 1963 as Doc. No. 715711 conveyed to John F. Dunn and Mary A Dunn, husband and wife as joint tenants, the following described land: Tract G, Registered Land Survey No. 352, files of Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County. Subject to easements, restrictions and reservations of record, if any. The Warranty Deed made no specific reference to the roadway easement over Tract G stated in Doc. No. 647217. Pursuant to the Warranty Deed, the Registrar of Titles issued Certificate of Title No. 355011 for Tract G. 7. The Petitioners, Charles E. Von Eeck:hout and Sue L. Van Eeckhout, husband and wife as joint tenants, acquired title to Tract H, Registered Land Survey No. 352 by deed dated May 18, 1971, filed June 2, 1971 as Doc. No. 998132. Pursuant to the deed, the Registrar of Titles issued Certificate of Title No. 464660. 8. John F. Dunn and Mary Ann Dunn, husband and wife, executed a Utility Easement in favor of Charles E. Van Eeck:hout conveying "an easement for the 7 installation and maintenance of utilities" on said Tract G. The instrument, dated May 13, 1971, was filed June 2, 1971 as Doc. No. 998133 and a memorial of it was entered on Certificates of Title Nos. 355011 (Dunn -Tract G) and 464660 (Van Eeckhout -Tract H). 9. Charles E. Van Eeckhout and Sue L Van Eeckhout, husband and wife, as Assignor, executed a Partial Assignment of Easement, dated July 29, 1971, in favor of Minneapolis Gas Company, a Delaware corporation, as Assignee. The Assignment was filed August 18, 1971 as Doc. No. 1006708 and a memorial of it was entered on Certificate of Title No. 355011 (Dunn -Tract G), but not on Certificate of Title No. 464660 (Van Eeckhout -Tract H). 10. Summary of transfers: In 1954 Daniels conveyed Tract H together with a driveway easement over Tract G to Case. In 1960 Daniels conveyed Tract F together with an easement for roadway purposes over Tract G to the Dunns, who a year later subdivided Tract F. In 1970 Daniels conveyed Tract G to the Dunns. In 1971 successors to Case conveyed Tract H to Van Eeckhouts, who almost simultaneously, acquired a utility easement over Tract G from the Dunns. Current Status of Title. 11. Defendant Mary Ann Dunn, unmarried, is the registered fee owner of Tract G, Registered Land Survey No. 352 (Ce1iificate of Title No. 1090376) and also of Tracts A, B, C and D, Registered Land Survey No. 1002 (Certificate of Title No. 1090375). 12. Petitioner Sue Van Eeckhout, married to Petitioner Charles E. Van Eeckhout, is the registered fee owner of Tract H, Registered Land Survey No. 352 (Certificate of Title No. 1035711). 8 Pleadings. 13. Petitioners (Van Eeckhouts) in their Petition request, among other things, that the Court construe the driveway easement (Doc. No. 432783) and the utility easement (Doc. No. 998133) as "serving all parcels of land into which Tract H, Registered Land Survey No. 352 may lawfully be subdivided." Defendant (Dunn) in her Answer requests, among other things, that the Court (a) determine "the scope of the disputed driveway and utility easements," (b) prohibit "Petitioners from use of any greater portion of Tract G than is currently occupied by the existing driveway," and (c) prohibit "Petitioners from installation and maintenance of utilities other than for use in serving a single residence." 14. In her Post Trial Memorandum the Defendant requests a result rather different from that stated in her Answer. Specifically, Defendant asks for an Order providing that (a) the owners of Tract H be allowed to use Tract G "solely for private 'driveway' purposes," (b) the Petitioners "may not grant any easement rights in Tract G to any third party, including the City of Orono," (c) "the appurtenant Driveway Easement does not entitle Petitioners to construct a 'private road' over Tract G," (d) the "Petitioners have a utility easement over Tract G appurtenant to Tract H allowing Petitioners to use Tract G solely for the installation and maintenance of private utilities," and (e) the "Petitioners may not grant any easement rights in Tract G to any third party, including the City of Orono or any public utility." At the hearing Petitioners objected to the introduction of evidence that would tend to support Defendant's expanded requests. In their Post- Hearing Memorandum Petitioners asked for an additional hearing if such requests were to be considered. Driveway Easement, Doc. No. 432783. 15. The easement rights stated in Doc. No. 432783, which was filed August 24, 1954, actually arose at an earlier time. According to Torrens Case No. 11775, the Applicant in that matter was obligated to convey such easement rights to one Olive C. Case. The present desires of the Petitioners and the Defendant in this matter, or even their intentions 9 in 1971, are not helpful in detem1ining the original intentions of the parties in the Torrens proceeding in 1954. 16. Petitioners (Van Eeckhouts) and defendant (Dunn) both take the position that the driveway easement is an appurtenant easement, that Tract H is the benefited land and that Tract G is the burdened land. The position is consistent with the manner in which the easement was created (see Memorandum paragraphs 1 and 3, above). It is also consistent with the general presumption of law. Thompson v. Germania Life Insurance Co., 97 Minn. 89 at 93, 106 NW 102 (1906). (" ... a grant of an easement in gross is never presumed when it can fairly be construed as appurtenant to some other estate.") 17. A dominant (benefited) tenement may be subdivided. (See, Restatement of Property, Sec. 488 cmt. B, 1944.) Generally, if the dominant tenement is subdivided, the grantee of each parcel is entitled to use of the right-of-way. Dawson v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 15 Minn. 136, Gil. 102 (1870). In the present case, several factors lead to the conclusion that if Tract H is subdivided the owners of the separate parcels may use Tract G for driveway purposes. The 40-foot width of the driveway easement is substantially greater than the 10-foot or 12-foot widths typically described for easements considered to be for "private driveway" purposes. It seems fairly obvious that a parcel as large as Tract H ( over 20 acres) would someday be subdivided. Since Tract H has no practical access to a public road except over Tract G, it also seems obvious that the parties to the conveyance in 1954 expected that the owners of the subdivided parcels would all make use of the driveway easement over Tract G. 18. Although Defendant (Dunn) in her Answer requested that the Petitioners use of Tract G be limited to existing driveway, she did not present any evidence tending to support that request and did not pursue it in her Post Trial Memorandum. Defendant made no allegation and offered no evidence that the use of the easement by the owners of a subdivided Tract H would overburden Tract G. 10 Utility Easement, Doc. No. 998133. 19. Petitioners acquired the utility easement over Tract G from the Dunns at the same time they purchased Tract H from another party. Charles Van Eeckhout testified at the hearing that at the time he acquired Tract H and the utility easement he believed Tract H could have been subdivided into 20 parcels and he had electric utilities installed to serve that number. Defendant (Dunn) did not testify and no other evidence was offered on her behalf disputing Mr. Van Eeckhout's statements regarding the utility easement. Defendant appears to have abandoned her request for a determination that the utility easement may serve only a single residence. 20. Considerations similar to those stated in Memorandum paragraphs 16 and 17, above, lead to the conclusion that that if Tract H is subdivided the owners of the separate parcels may use Tract G for the installation and maintenance of utilities. Granting Rights in the Easements. 21. Based on the evidence at hearing, as it relates to the pleadings contained in the Petition and Answer filed in the matter, the Petitioners have established that they are entitled to the relief requested in the Petition. However, as noted in Memorandum paragraph 14, above, at the hearing the Defendant raised an additional matter: may Petitioners grant rights in the driveway and utility easements to third parties. 22. As far as the Defendant's assertions (that rights in the easements cannot be granted to third parties) may affect the rights of the Assignee in the Partial Assignment of Easement filed as Doc. No. 1006708, (see Memorandum paragraph 9, above), the issue is not proper for adjudication because the Assignee in the Assignment (Minneapolis Gas Company or its successor) is not a party to this proceeding. Defendant could have, but did not, seek to have the Assignee added as a party. 1 1 23. There was testimony at the hearing regarding certain documents that the City of Orono often requires from persons who are subdividing their land. Such documents might include something that could be considered a grant of rights in the driveway easement. Apparently no such document has been executed and, therefore, discussion of such a document would be somewhat speculative. In addition, it would not be proper to determine the specific rights of the City of Orono in such a document since it has not been made a party to this proceeding. 24. Despite the difficulties noted in the previous three paragraphs, both parties to this proceeding have indicated in their post-trial memoranda their willingness to have the Court deal with the additional issue in some fashion. In that regard, the case of Giles v. Luker, 215 Minn. 256, 9 NW2d 716 (1943) is helpful. (In fact, although Petitioners cite 8 Minnesota cases in their Post-hearing Memorandum and Defendant cites 4 in hers, the Giles case is the only one cited in both.) The plaintiff in Giles owned a 6.3 acre parcel of land together with "the right to use as a highway the road or driveway now located upon that portion of said Lot 1, lying east of the tract heretofore conveyed." The Court determined that the plaintiff could allow gravel trucks to use the easement for access to a gravel pit on plaintiffs land. The Court at page 260 cited a New Hampshire case for the following proposition: "Nor is the owner of the way limited to its use by himself in propria persona. The way belongs to him as his property. All persons having occasion may, with his pennission, transact business with him by passing to and fro over the way." The Court went on to limit the use by trucks somewhat in the interests of preventing "unnecessary injury to defendant's property or business." No allegation was made in the present case that Defendant Dunn's property would be injured if utilities in Tract G were installed and/or maintained by a utility company instead of by the owners of Tract H themselves, or if the driveway over Tract G were installed and/or maintained by the City of Orono instead of by the owners of Tract H themselves. Neither did the evidence presented give a hint of such injury. Thus, in accordance with Giles it would seem proper for the Petitioners (Van Eeckhouts) to allow utility companies to install and maintain in Tract G utilities serving 12 Tract H, and to allO\v the city to maintain the driveway over Tract G. In fact, it would be quite unusual to expect the Van Eeckhouts on their o,vn to string power lines and run gas lines along the nearly 400-foot length of Tract G. It may even be appropriate to take judicial notice that utilities are usually installed and maintained by utility companies. 25. The precise issue of importance, then, is whether the Petitioners may formalize their an-angements with utility companies and the city by written agreements, and file such written agreements with the Registrar of Titles so that they may be memorialized on the Certificate of Title for Tract G. The answer would seem to be in the affirmative. Doc. No. 1006708 might serve as an example of such an arrangement. Insofar as it constitutes a formal authorization for the Grantee to use the utility easement on behalf of the owners of Tract H in the same way as the owners themselves may have done, it is valid. The title of the document (Partial Assignment of Easement) may give the wrong impression. However, document refers to the utility easement filed as Doc. No. 998133 and states that the "Assignee" is assigned the right "to construct, operate, inspect, maintain, repair, alter or remove gas mains, service pipes and appurtenances thereto" on Tract G. The document does not increase the burden of the easement on Tract G, nor does it attempt to expand the land area benefited by the original utility easement. The Registrar of Titles accepted Document No. 1006708 for filing, and such filing appears to be proper and in accordance with Minn. Stat.§§ 508.48 and 507.24. 26. The statements at paragraphs 1.c and 2.c in the foregoing Conclusions of Law would be applicable to Doc. No. 1006708 and to appropriately worded grants or assignments in favor of the other utility companies and to the City of Orono. Conclusion. 27. The driveway and utility easements over Tract G are appurtenant to Tract H; if Tract H is subdivided, the owners of the separate parcels may have use of the easements; 13 and w1itten agreements with agents regarding construction, maintenance and repair of the driveway and utilities may be filed with the Registrar of Titles. 28. Further evidentiary hearings in this proceeding are not recommended. Date: December 1, 2003 Respectfully submitted, Edward A. Bock, Jr. Examiner of Titles Note: See the manual entitled "Contested To1rens Cases" for instructions regarding obtaining Court adoption of the Examiner's Report and suggested fonn of Order, at the Examiner's web site: http://wvlw.hennepin.us/ExTitles/etmain.htm 14 ., ., .J.C.,,, B ,. .. C ,,. D 't.. .~ . ..... .; ~ 0 .,; . -0 ~ 35:t t.., ' .< ,~ 11 G' I~•-,,:-. t ,. T I:, ~ .\ . , ' \\ J i• ,, •• -:-\. \ \,.,,.ic· 432/1L AJ 2 7 IL ~ /[jdl!_. ?W CPI' ::i17 1 3i .,.,;· -.... Ii,.,...~ certify t.hot in aeoordaono.. "1.tb °"' ,...,,,,i.100.0 of •· O.pt.er ~. l(inn,,aot.a St.otut.e• of 194·} •• •-OO<Kl, I hatt iru.r- -...,....i thee fr-Ucr,drlf 6••er1 !>ed tract or lend in th• County or ~nnep.ln an,l the st.au of Ml.nneeot.a, to vit: n..t :-,,.rt of 0-.. South ... •t 1/4 of Section J.(., Tovnoh1, 118 llorth, ~ 2) w .. t., dt,ncri b,,d "" follovo I Bar1nn1'1r ~t t!.e Scut.ln.ie•t conu-r cf =id Southt-&rt 1/l of ui~ Mctier.; th,n0<1 rur.nine Jlorth oo the lole ■t line or ■aid 1/l. sectioo 11.36 chaina ".; . ' •• c:i ~ O· ': ~ ... ~ : (74~. 7(, f-ee-t) 1 then<:-e llorth 74 ° JG' fa:st :l.42 c:>ain.e (555. 72 r,,.,t); t!><-I'c,o llor-t.h 57° .(.5 1 l.aet. 7. 67 chaina (50l. 22 f.,.,t); thence ~th l?.l..O el:ains (lW.40 f~-~t) tc the oect1on-11ne of ""id oection ( thence ._...t alooe "8.l d s"ction-lfre 11.. JC· er.a in• (W.3.Bt: r .... t. to the r-1,,ee of begirn'.:o,-, E':CCe~t •c.e f:;'.~,Y-·1~ described 1.1,.nc: Serlnnitlf. ht a ro1nt en the lit et lin~ c!' said SOl,~heeal 1/4, 11.Jb crbins (74?. 7E f~et; 1:crt<: c,r tte Scuth- i,eet earner thereof; theno,, llorth 74 ° JC' East J7L.1L re~t; thenoe South pirallel vith thf.' '.ket line of :,,;!d &,-.,<he,,.,t 1/l 181.. ll. feet; thence South 71.. 0 JC 1 \lest }71.. ll f.,.,t to th~ •,..,et line of sa.ic Southee.et 1/4; theLc£· llortr "10Ilf eaic. ~et line 18L .U f...,t to the point of ~i:,nlnr.; and .lll tt•.ct Jl"rl of the llorthve!rt 1/L. of the Northea•t 1/4 of S.,ction J, 1owru,h1F ll7 llort~,, hmge .:3 ihest, lyinr; Nortr oJ: the Hlnne,.ota U>d i.e.t.rn a..11-~• Cor.p;.ny •~ cir>,t -<>r ....,,,y, exoept the roll~ deeerlt.d pro,-ert:r: StarliDf' e.t • ;-oit>t on the llert line or ""id Jlortln,,ut 1/4 of the H l/1.. l.c!J. 'l reet South of t.:'>,, ll~trt o<Jn>!lr thereof, \Jhicb i" tbe beginning ,oint of the pr,,J"'rtr_.!o~..._ex.......,ptea; thence liorthe,ist~rl:r ~t ,n "-Ilfl• of 66° ~•.'ad1rtanoe Dr 181.05 f..et; -thence deflectine right 23° 10' e d.1.sw.noe 0f 192.2~ feet; thence de!1.ectin[ rjeht J8° 5J' • dt.tanoe of 60.J6 f.,.,t; thenoe South and J:"Millel to the \;est line o! ,...id llort>r~cst 1/ L or t.he Nor-the• s•. 1/ l a distanee of 500.5 feet, :,o:ce or 1,.s~, to th" cent<!r-llr;e of Loog • lbke Cre.,k; t.he,,oe Soat!:iwest.erly "loll€ "4io c,;nter-line to 1 t,, IJ>< ~·,""i -0" '· point of inter&eetion vith th<, Northerly ---~·,""".''°'1.~-•~-~·.;"--"~•~·':'-cc-,-==:----...:...:C,. 11.ne of the Jtl..nnnsota. end Western r6.ih.-.y ·::,.. ..,.,.,. "'0 ·.... /2 Ccaµlny'11 rie'ht-,of-Yty; thence MB6terly ..,:-.~_t.J·,.,... ... cfSu, . .3-ln'Z:J • ~.,. .,-.... ..,_,..., Jlortherl..-r 1 .... ht-of-'.le._':"" a dista.n()e Nf. c ....... o-f r:w ¼ cf ~ ua..J..U ; ""'-f"> NE..-. .f S«.J-.,7 -:..J of JJ2.6 feet, IOON> or laaa, tc, it.s point of-1nu,,--ctJon vith t.he West line of afor.- -1 cl llort.ln,,,,,rt i/4 of th., Nortbeaet 1/ 4 I t.her><,e llorth elO!lf, ""icl \lest line a di■ta..oe of· 678.1 r-t, w,re or leu, to the poi.ot of befinnillf of th@ rroi,e rt y to toe u.oe pted , •11 •eoordinr: to the Go-.erna■nt S\l.TTeJ thereof'. -.And_ that the ..,,,...y abown herein 1a a eorreet d•li,,...Uoa of' -id ~- ~-5. Mlli,y, .Jr.~ • 11:LlLI & n;un, b,gineera Lcmi Lal:•, .H1.rmuota.