DocketNumber: 329723
Filed Date: 1/24/2017
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 1/25/2017
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MICHAEL MATICKA and EDWARD UNPUBLISHED MATICKA, Co-Trustees of the ALETHA January 24, 2017 MATICKA TRUST, THOMAS AXTELL, JOYCE AXTELL, CHARLES RUSSIAN, and REUSHAN RUSSIAN, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v No. 329723 Midland Circuit Court MARTIN J. WISSMUELLER, DONNA M. LC No. 12-008689-CH WISSMUELLER, MICHAEL MCGUIRE, RANDY E. CRIPE, ROBERTA L. CRIPE, MICHAEL CLARK, Trustee of the NORMA M. HALL TRUST, Defendants-Appellants. Before: O’CONNELL, P.J., and MARKEY and MURRAY, JJ. MURRAY, J., (concurring in part, dissenting in part). After a bench trial the trial court entered a judgment in favor of plaintiffs on two bases: Implied easement by quasi-easement and prescriptive easement. For the reasons briefly articulated below, I concur in the affirmance of the trial court’s judgment on the basis of its prescriptive easement ruling, but dissent from the majority’s agreement with the trial court’s implied easement by quasi-easement ruling. Amongst other elements, to prove the existence of an implied easement by quasi- easement, a plaintiff must establish continuity. Charles A Murray Trust v Futrell,303 Mich. App. 28
, 42; 840 NW2d 775 (2013). Continuity in this context means an easement used continually without the interference of man. Zemon v Netzorg,247 Mich. 563
, 565;226 N.W. 242
(1929). At oral argument before this Court, plaintiffs’ counsel essentially conceded that the bridge easement (originating in the Wolverine Power deed) that the trial court relied upon for finding the continuity element did not satisfy the continuity element, a concession the law supports. See Waubun Beach Ass’n v Wilson,274 Mich. 598
, 606;265 N.W. 474
(1936) and Bubser v -1- Ranguette,269 Mich. 388
, 392;257 N.W. 845
(1934).1 For this reason I would not affirm the trial court’s ruling on that easement theory. However, because the trial court’s ultimate conclusion on the prescriptive easement theory can be upheld for the reasons stated in the majority opinion, I join the opinion to affirm. /s/ Christopher M. Murray 1 Plaintiffs’ counsel did argue, however, that equity supported the trial court’s finding on implied easement by quasi-easement. -2-