RICHARD F HARRIS V HANCHECK BROTHERS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHARD F. HARRIS and MARLENE P.
HARRIS,
UNPUBLISHED
June 7, 2002
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
No. 236131
Menominee Circuit Court
LC No. 99-008945-CH
HANCHEK BROTHERS and NICHOLAS
HANCHEK,
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Hood and Sawyer, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right the circuit court’s entry of judgment in part for plaintiffs and
in part for defendants in this real property dispute. We affirm.
Plaintiffs assert the trial court erred in holding that the easement created by a warranty
deed was in gross rather than appurtenant and in ruling that defendants had the right to build a
road across a portion of plaintiffs’ property pursuant to that easement. Actions to determine
interests in land are equitable, and we review the trial court’s conclusions de novo. Sackett v
Atyeo, 217 Mich App 676, 680; 552 NW2d 536 (1996).
Michigan law recognizes two types of easements: easements appurtenant and easements
in gross. An easement appurtenant serves or benefits one parcel of land by passing over or
burdening another, while an easement in gross is personal, most commonly arises in connection
with utility companies and railroads, and may not be transferred except by a utility or railroad.
Cameron, § 6.4, p 192. If an easement is not expressly appurtenant or in gross, Michigan courts
look at the surrounding circumstances to determine its nature. Id. at § 6.5, p 193. Michigan law
favors easements appurtenant over easements in gross, and an easement will never be presumed
to be a mere personal right where it can fairly be construed to be appurtenant to some other
estate. Todd v Nobach, 368 Mich 544, 549-550; 118 NW2d 402 (1962).
The easement at issue here may fairly be construed to be appurtenant to another estate.
The conveyance’s language explicitly states the easement was intended to provide ingress and
egress to another parcel of land owned by the grantors. Smith v Dennedy, 224 Mich 378, 381;
194 NW 998 (1923). Based on this connection with other property, and the preference for
-1-
easements appurtenant over easements in gross, we conclude that the trial court erred in ruling
the easement was in gross rather than appurtenant.
The trial court determined the easement was in gross in part because the conveyance’s
language limits the easement to the grantors and their issue. Michigan law generally construes
personal easements as in gross. See, e.g., Lakeside Associates v Toski Sands, 131 Mich App 292,
296; 346 NW2d 92 (1983). However, where a conveyance clearly creates an easement
appurtenant, we simply disregard the language limiting the easement to particular individuals.
See, e.g., Todd v Nobach, 368 Mich 544, 549-550; 118 NW2d 402 (1962). Thus, the easement
appurtenant simply runs with the land. In the instant case, because defendants own the property,
they are entitled to the easement.
For the above reasons, we conclude that the trial court reached the correct result, albeit
for the wrong reason. Having reached this conclusion, we need not consider plaintiffs’
remaining arguments.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ David H. Sawyer
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
