Deeded Easement rights where "sole maintainance

[Bream]

Deeded Easement rights where "sole maintainance" is assigned to Grantee

We bought property in Michigan that would otherwise be landlocked without a 50 foot wide easement running over a neighbor's property. Our intent is to put a double wide, asphalt drive from the main road to our property (so that two cars can narrowly pass one another if necessary without backing up onto the busy main road). The previous owner already prepared the ground with a base and the necessary culverts. The neighbor has now approached us multiple times telling us to stop driving on his grass. We have showed him the easement papers, talked to him several times and even had a survey crew stake the easement. He finally said he would agree to letting us drive over the land if we moved the culverts and driveway base over to the very edge of the property and only used a 12 foot wide area - but he would not agree to anything permanent like asphalt or concrete. We really don't have the funds right now to redo what has already been done - we are trying to build a house and put 3 kids through college - and I don't see how this changes anything for him as far as enjoying his property is concerned. The current driveway base once had gravel on it (placed there by the previous owner of our land) and our neighbor had it all removed and today informed us that he would remove any and all driveway improvements we put down too. He keeps putting "no trespassing" signs up in the drive area, removing the survey stakes and threatening to call the police - and today I saw a wheelbarrow, soil and several large shrubs in the area that appear ready to be planted in the easement. He stated to me today that he has hired an attorney and that we have no rights except to drive over the grass back and forth to our property. The biggest issue I have with that is that there is a creek separating his lot from ours and it is making the area quite muddy - my husband's truck has already been stuck once and I don't dare drive back there with my sedan. We can't reasonably get to our property in all types of Michigan weather without some improvements. We need to put some gravel down so construction crews can start getting back there to build our house.

Also, the deeded easement states that we have "sole responsibility" for maintaining the easement parcel - exactly what does that give us the right to do? Can he plant landscape - can we? We'd like to make the area look nice - we aren't planning to leave him with some eyesore.

Is there anything we can do short of waiting to be sued and using our house fund to defend ourselves in court? Can we stop him from ripping out an asphalt driveway if we move forward with one?

Side note: I believe his motive here is to "force" us into just buying the lot from him. He tried to sell it to us within 5 minutes of meeting us and 4 years ago tried to sell it to the neighbors on the other side of the easement - also during their first conversation with him. We are not in a position to buy it from him right now - and I'm not sure how much financial sense it makes for us to buy land we can already legally use for the only purpose we would ever have for it. All it would do is increase our taxes.

 

[LdiJ]

We bought property in Michigan that would otherwise be landlocked without a 50 foot wide easement running over a neighbor's property. Our intent is to put a double wide, asphalt drive from the main road to our property (so that two cars can narrowly pass one another if necessary without backing up onto the busy main road). The previous owner already prepared the ground with a base and the necessary culverts. The neighbor has now approached us multiple times telling us to stop driving on his grass. We have showed him the easement papers, talked to him several times and even had a survey crew stake the easement. He finally said he would agree to letting us drive over the land if we moved the culverts and driveway base over to the very edge of the property and only used a 12 foot wide area - but he would not agree to anything permanent like asphalt or concrete. We really don't have the funds right now to redo what has already been done - we are trying to build a house and put 3 kids through college - and I don't see how this changes anything for him as far as enjoying his property is concerned. The current driveway base once had gravel on it (placed there by the previous owner of our land) and our neighbor had it all removed and today informed us that he would remove any and all driveway improvements we put down too. He keeps putting "no trespassing" signs up in the drive area, removing the survey stakes and threatening to call the police - and today I saw a wheelbarrow, soil and several large shrubs in the area that appear ready to be planted in the easement. He stated to me today that he has hired an attorney and that we have no rights except to drive over the grass back and forth to our property. The biggest issue I have with that is that there is a creek separating his lot from ours and it is making the area quite muddy - my husband's truck has already been stuck once and I don't dare drive back there with my sedan. We can't reasonably get to our property in all types of Michigan weather without some improvements. We need to put some gravel down so construction crews can start getting back there to build our house.

Also, the deeded easement states that we have "sole responsibility" for maintaining the easement parcel - exactly what does that give us the right to do? Can he plant landscape - can we? We'd like to make the area look nice - we aren't planning to leave him with some eyesore.

Is there anything we can do short of waiting to be sued and using our house fund to defend ourselves in court? Can we stop him from ripping out an asphalt driveway if we move forward with one?

Side note: I believe his motive here is to "force" us into just buying the lot from him. He tried to sell it to us within 5 minutes of meeting us and 4 years ago tried to sell it to the neighbors on the other side of the easement - also during their first conversation with him. We are not in a position to buy it from him right now - and I'm not sure how much financial sense it makes for us to buy land we can already legally use for the only purpose we would ever have for it. All it would do is increase our taxes.

He has no right to tell you what you that you cannot use and maintain the entire easement. However, unfortunately, in order to make him see that clearly, you are probably going to have to get a real estate attorney involved.

 

[justalayman]

You have rights to use the full width of the easement.

Unless it is stated in the grant as being allowed, you cannot pave the drive. You can maintain the drive but not improve it. Paving would be an improvement.

You are generally allowed to construct a gravel base for the drive as that is viewed as a basic drive and not truly an improvement. If you start to make a drive and he damages it, he is committing a crime. Chances are the police are not going to get involved and will tell you to take the guy to civil court.

 

[STEPHAN]

Change you mind, buy the property and do whatever you want.

 

[154NH773]

You have not given us the entire wording of the easement grant, so it is impossible to tell if you have a right to pave the easement.

I agree with justalayman, although whether paving would be an improvement or a "necessary" step to make the driveway useable in all weather would be for a judge to decide. And believe me, it is up to the judge, who could rule that paving is "reasonable" and allowable. I probably wouldn't take that chance and just put down a good base of rock and gravel.

I agree there is no need for purchasing the property; you already have the right to use it regardless of what your neighbor believes. I would put down the gravel and sue him in Small Claims Court if he removes it (MI; limit $5,000). Just make sure you have all surveys, points located, photos before and after, etc.

 

[Bream]

You have rights to use the full width of the easement.

Unless it is stated in the grant as being allowed, you cannot pave the drive. You can maintain the drive but not improve it. Paving would be an improvement.

You are generally allowed to construct a gravel base for the drive as that is viewed as a basic drive and not truly an improvement. If you start to make a drive and he damages it, he is committing a crime. Chances are the police are not going to get involved and will tell you to take the guy to civil court.

Edited to say I saw the next post after I wrote this, which kind of answers my question. The wording doesn't specifically grant us the right to a paved driveway - just reasonable ingress and egress. I have spoken to both previous owners and the easement was widened from 33 to 50 feet for the purpose of allowing a double wide, paved drive. Doubt that helps me much though. Giving the topography of the land, I'm guessing almost anyone would see the necessity of paving it to get through our rough winters - like the one that is still fresh in everyone's mind, lol.


Right now there is no gravel drive - just a base under grass that he replanted after removing the gravel put there by the previous owner. So at this point, isn't anything an improvement? The major issue is that a gravel drive is very difficult to clear snow and ice from in the winter, and my car (nor any of our 3 teens' cars) would not make it up the incline of the easement on the ice - meaning I cannot reasonably use it to access my house for several months out of the year. In the spring the whole area becomes a pond, so we are already going to have to raise it up at least a foot. I hear what you are saying but I'm not sure how the asphalt driveway keeps him from enjoying his land anymore than a gravel driveway would - and a gravel driveway would likely cause problems for us during adverse weather conditions. Is that an argument a judge may listen to?

 

[justalayman]

Bream;3259232] I have spoken to both previous owners and the easement was widened from 33 to 50 feet for the purpose of allowing a double wide, paved drive. Doubt that helps me much though

it doesn't since it is the grantors intent that makes the difference here...unless of course you can support that it was the grantors intent to allow for a paved drive.

Giving the topography of the land, I'm guessing almost anyone would see the necessity of paving it to get through our rough winters - like the one that is still fresh in everyone's mind, lol.

I'm not buying it but if you can convince those that matter, that's all that counts. I can construct a drive without paving it that is as almost as durable as pavement in most all situations. It does require a bit more maintenance but not so much it would be a valid argument, if you were making it to me. It is all in what you use for the drive.

Right now there is no gravel drive - just a base under grass that he replanted after removing the gravel put there by the previous owner. So at this point, isn't anything an improvement?

a drive is generally not expected to remain a soft dirt pathway. That is how a gravel drive is not an improvement beyond the intent of the grantor. It is expected that there be at least a drive constructed. drive= a durable pathway in this situation/

The major issue is that a gravel drive is very difficult to clear snow and ice from in the winter, and my car (nor any of our 3 teens' cars) would not make it up the incline of the easement on the ice - meaning I cannot reasonably use it to access my house for several months out of the year.

I don't see your argument as valid. I have lived in MI most my life and experienced complete closures of several counties activities due to bad weather. I see no real difference in driving either type of drive. Same thing with plowing./ I have lived on a dirt drive for decades. No problem plowing it.

In the spring the whole area becomes a pond, so we are already going to have to raise it up at least a foot.

that is an acceptable activity. Again, given it is granted as an ingress and egress, it would be expected to make it usable given the specific situation.

I hear what you are saying but I'm not sure how the asphalt driveway keeps him from enjoying his land anymore than a gravel driveway would - and a gravel driveway would likely cause problems for us during adverse weather conditions. Is that an argument a judge may listen to?

it's not that it changes anything regarding the servient tenant. It is simply a matter of what is or isn't allowed based on the grant and intent of the grantor.