Akg Real Estate, LLC v. Kosterman

717 N.W.2d 835 (2006)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ds purchased a house on a four-acre lot. The property (the Dominant Estate) lacked access to a public road except by means of three recorded, physically overlapping easements across part of an 80-acre parcel of land (the Servient Estate), which partially surrounded their property. The property was originally purchased in an 84-acre lot. Those owners granted their son-in-law the 4-acre lot along with an easement. They granted a second right-of-way easement along the same course but it was 66 feet wide. This made it possible for the easement to be converted into a public road. By 1997, the Servient Estate was owned 50/50 by a Trust and the daughter and son-in-law of the owners of the original 84 acres. P offered to purchase the Servient Estate from the Chviliceks and the Trust, with the intention of developing a subdivision. The 1998 deeds expressly recognized a 30-foot-wide private road easement on the same location as the 1960 and 1961 easements. The two deeds also reserved to the grantors all 'recorded and/or existing easements and right of way reservations.' In 2000, the Dominant Estate was sold to Ds. P proposed to give Ds access to Highway 31 via a cul-de-sac, which would connect with Cobblestone Drive, which in turn would connect with Highway 31. P would develop about seven lots over Ds' easements and Ds would be required to reconfigure their driveway so that it connected with P's proposed cul-de-sac. Ds have refused to modify their right-of-way easements. P's plan would put Ds' house in an odd position relative to the cul-de-sac and the neighboring houses, require them to change their street address, and replace their direct access to Highway 31 with a circuitous route. P sought a declaratory judgment that the easements terminated once P provided alternate public road access to the Dominant Estate. The Judge ruled that the 1998 easement would terminate once P provided public road access, regardless of the location, but the 1961 easement of 66 feet would remain in effect even after P provided the Dominant Estate with alternate public road access. Both parties appealed. The court of appeals reversed the circuit court's holding that the 66-foot easement would continue. It held that both easements should be modified under the doctrine of changed conditions to avoid a 'grossly inefficient allocation of resources.' Ds appealed.