Tomecek v. Bavas, 482 Mich. 484

Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court held that the original grantors intended a central drive easement in the O.T. Henkle subdivision to include utility access, allowing the plaintiffs to connect their property to a municipal sewer. The court also held that the Land Division Act cannot be used to create substantive property rights, although it may be used to reflect rights that already exist. The court declined to decide whether Michigan recognizes an easement by necessity for utilities and affirmed the result below in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part.

Holdings

1. The central drive easement included utility access, in addition to road access for ingress and egress, because the original grantors intended the central and south drive easements to have the same scope.
2. The restrictive covenant did not permanently bar construction on Lot 2; it merely prohibited construction until municipal sewer service became available to the lot.
3. The Land Division Act cannot be used to create substantive property rights; it permits a court to alter a recorded plat to reflect property rights that already exist.
4. The court did not decide whether Michigan recognizes an easement by necessity for utilities or whether such an easement would apply here because resolution was unnecessary.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the central drive easement included utility access when it was created.
2. Whether the restrictive covenant barred construction on Lot 2 after municipal sewer service became available.
3. Whether the Land Division Act authorized a court to create or alter substantive property rights by revising a recorded plat.
4. Whether Michigan should recognize and apply an easement by necessity for utility access in this case.

Disposition

other