(logo) Attorneys' Title Guaranty Fund Inc.

Casenotes

Wisconsin

Easements

Hanson v State Dept of Natural Resources, 2009 AP 1959 (Wis Ct App, 2010).

Facts:Margo Hanson and Thomas Schwartzburg (collectively, Hanson) own a property on which there exists an easement for the benefit of a landlocked parcel owned by the State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The easement language stated: "Easement for the benefit of Parcel C for the right of way purposes described as follows&€¦"

Hanson filed a complaint, alleging that the DNR's use of the land as a public boat launch increased the traffic on the property well beyond the intended scope of the easement and creating an unreasonable burden. The DNR moved for summary judgment and the court granted the motion. Hanson appealed.

Holding:Affirmed. The court stated that the use of extrinsic evidence to otherwise define or limit the easement is not appropriate if the easement itself is clear and unambiguous. The court found that the language of the deed granting the easement was so clear as to prevent the inclusion of any other evidence. Given that the easement clearly provided for egress and ingress for the DNR property without any limitations, the court concluded that there were no issues of material fact and that summary judgment in favor of DNR had been appropriate. As such, it affirmed the order of the trial court.

© ATG|Casenotes/Bulletin 1103_v4n2

[Last update: 3-4-11]