Must I Grant Easement if Previous Family Refused

[newkidontheblock]

My question involves the demand on me for an easement in the state of Michigan. I purchased a piece a property with a house on it in 2005. Behind me is 3 acres that I learned is and has been landlocked for 10 years now. Apparently, my land and the 3 acres behind me was once 1 large piece owned by the same family. When the parents died the lot was divided between a sister (whom sold it to me) and her brother whom she didn't get along with. Somehow, an easement was never granted to him. I wonder if they did this intentionally to him and how. I bought my land from the sister (I am unlrelated and never met these people before). The sister wouldn't give her brother an easement to get to his land and when she decided to sell, he refused to buy the land which would extinguish the issue altogether. He also never fought for an easement then either. She sold the land and I bought it. The brother (owner of the 3 acres) is now demanding an easement from me to get to his land stating I have an obligation to give it to him. He had ample opportunity to fix this with his family before I bought this land as he was very well aware of the issue. Now, after 5 years of me owning this land, he's taking me to court. I refuse to give it to him and will fight it in court. Does he have a case? Do I have a defense? Shouldn't he have attempted to clear this up years ago? His land is a wooded lot, he's never used it and never even walked on it in the 5 years I've been here. He's obviously preparing to sell it or subdivide it. An easement across my land would turn his worthless piece of property into an half million dollar windfall and decrease the value of my land as well as create undesirable traffic that I can not control or tolerate. Help!

[landagent]

The courts aren't big on this type of suit. It's a condemnation action for access, etc. You should get your attorneys fees paid by him along with quite a bit for the easement should the court grant one. Don't forget the damages it will cause. You will need to get an attorney and an appraiser. Keep us informed if you will.

[newkidontheblock]

Thank you Landagent. When you say "not big on this type of suit" do you mean they frown on the party that files them? Also, it sounds like you think he may have a chance at getting one. I will keep you informed.

[landagent]

There are things to look into such as how it became landlocked, who landlocked it, where is the best, (not required to be the shortest) access point. Historically, Judges don't like people using the courts time this way. The easement which may get granted is usually valued as if it was a fee simple transaction plus damages. Get at least two appraisers. Counter sue so if he changes his mind you still have him on the hook for the case. I would hate to see you run up thousands in legal fees and have the guy drop the suit. Your attorney will tell you alot of this. Keep asking questions of this board. There are some really good people here.

[LandSurveyor]

It would seem that his is how it works in Michigan......

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-...s/1224232.html

[aaron]

Michigan does not favor allowing people who obtain landlocked property to force their neighbors to allow a private road; it does, however, follow the traditional approach of implying an easement for access when a single parcel is split and the rear parcel becomes landlocked as a result.

An easement by necessity "may be implied by law where an owner of land splits his property so that one of the resulting parcels is landlocked except for access across the other parcel." Chapdelaine v. Sochocki, 247 Mich.App. 167, 172, 635 N.W.2d 339 (2001). The law presumes, in such situations, that the parties intended that the landlocked parcel be accessible, and, therefore, "[i]n a conveyance that deprives the owner of access to his property, access rights will be implied unless the parties clearly indicate they intended a contrary result." Id. at 173, 635 N.W.2d 339. As explained in Schmidt v. Eger, 94 Mich.App. 728, 732, 289 N.W.2d 851 (1980):

Before an easement will be implied [from necessity], the party who would assert the easement must establish that it is strictly necessary for the enjoyment of the property. Mere convenience, or even reasonable necessity, will not be sufficient if there are alternative routes, even if these alternatives prove more difficult or more expensive. All implied easements are based on the presumed intent of the parties, but this sort is additionally supported by the public policy favoring the productive and beneficial enjoyment of property.

A grant of an easement by necessity requires a showing of reasonable necessity.[9] Chapdelaine, supra at 173, 635 N.W.2d 339; Schmidt, supra at 732, 289 N.W.2d 851. In Schumacher v. Dep't of Natural Resources, 256 Mich.App. 103, 106, 663 N.W.2d 921 (2003), this Court stated, "The scope of an easement by necessity is that which is reasonably necessary for proper enjoyment of the property, with minimum burden on the servient estate."

[newkidontheblock]

Update: It turns out (after digging through additional information) that the party behind me actually has an easement to cross my land on record since 1998 (oh well, can't win them all :>). He just doesn't like where it is located and states it is not "convenient" enough for him. Amazing, he's the one who had the survey done and had the easement placed in it's current place. We will not negotiate a new location. Must we? To what extent can one make modifications to my land to make it "more convenient" for them? Currently the grade is steep and not passable by vehicle. They knew this 12 years ago when the easement was created. No changes have been made to the land since it's creation.