DALE LAVERN PASCK V GARY W HOWELL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
DALE LAVERN PASCK and EDITH
ELIZABETH HOGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
July 20, 2004
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
GARY W. HOWELL, HOWELL FARM LTD,
GRAVEL CREEK ASSOCIATES, and
CHRISTINE HOWELL,
No. 248817
Lapeer Circuit Court
LC No. 01-030468-CK
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Zahra, P.J., and Talbot and Wilder, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to defendants.
At issue was plaintiffs’ claim that the easement for ingress and egress to their property entitled
them to use the easement for electrical and utility services, and to cut down trees to install
electrical poles and overhead wires. We affirm.
This Court reviews the trial court’s grant or denial of summary disposition de novo.
Spiek v Dep’t of Transportation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). A motion for
summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support of a claim. The
motion should be granted if the evidence demonstrates that no genuine issue of material fact
exists, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. MacDonald v PKT,
Inc, 464 Mich 322, 332; 628 NW2d 33 (2001). For the most part, plaintiffs argue that
reasonableness should be the rule in determining the scope of their easement, as is the case with
an implied easement of necessity. This case, however, involves an express, written easement.
“The scope of an express easement cannot be unilaterally expanded.” Schumacher v Dep’t of
Natural Resources, 256 Mich App 103, 106; 663 NW2d 921 (2003), emphasis in original. The
scope of an easement is determined by the language of the grant. Unverzagt v Miller, 306 Mich
260, 266-267; 10 NW2d 849 (1943). Although under certain circumstances an easement for
ingress and egress can be ambiguous and subject to interpretation by a court, the easement
agreement here is not ambiguous. “Where the language of a legal instrument is plain and
unambiguous, it is to be enforced as written and no further inquiry is permitted.” Little v Kin,
468 Mich 699, 700; 664 NW2d 749 (2003). As the trial court noted in its findings, the express
agreement here provided that the easement could not be expanded except in writing signed by all
-1-
parties, and that the written agreement contained the parties’ entire understanding. The trial
court did not err in granting defendants’ motions for summary disposition.
Affirmed.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-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.
