## Facts

- A lakefront parcel on Pine Lake was subdivided into two lakefront “frontlots” (A and B) and four landlocked “backlots” (C–F); all lake frontage remained with the frontlots.
- To provide lake access for the backlots, the grantor reserved an express easement over a 33-foot shoreline strip located on what became frontlot B.
- The recorded easement granted backlot owners rights “for access to and use of the riparian rights to Pine Lake.”
- Robert and Barbara Little purchased frontlot B in 1977, making them owners of the servient estate as to the easement strip.
- Predecessors to the backlot owners constructed a dock from the easement area into the lake in 1988; later backlot owners (including Steven and Rosalyn Kin and Thomas and Darlene Trivan) used the dock and shoreline area for lake-related recreation.
- The Littles objected that the dock and related uses exceeded the easement and interfered with their riparian use.
- The Littles sued for removal of the dock and an injunction against future dock construction; the backlot owners counterclaimed that the Littles’ landscaping and shoreline improvements obstructed easement use.

## Issues

1. Whether an express easement granting rights “for access to and use of the riparian rights” includes the right to construct and maintain a dock on the servient shoreline.
2. If a dock is within the easement’s scope, whether the dock and associated activities are permissible improvements or instead unreasonably burden the servient estate.
3. Whether the servient owners’ landscaping and shoreline alterations unlawfully interfered with the dominant owners’ reasonable enjoyment of the easement.

## Decision

- The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s summary disposition and remanded for additional determinations defining the easement’s lawful scope and the parties’ permissible uses.
- The court treated the easement as granting more than mere passage to the water, but held that the extent of riparian uses (including dock rights) required focused analysis of the easement’s scope and reasonableness limits.
- The case was remanded for the trial court to determine whether the easement language authorizes a dock and, if so, whether the particular dock was necessary for effective easement use and did not unreasonably burden the servient estate.
- The case was also remanded to reassess whether specific shoreline changes by the servient owners impermissibly obstructed the easement.

## Legal Principles

- An express easement is interpreted primarily from the text of the instrument; unambiguous language is enforced as written, and extrinsic evidence is consulted only if the text is ambiguous.
- A grant of “access to and use of riparian rights” may confer substantial water-related privileges, but it does not automatically confer unlimited rights equivalent to fee-simple riparian ownership.
- Even when an easement permits certain water uses, the dominant estate may not place or maintain improvements on the servient estate unless the improvement is necessary for effective use of the easement and does not unreasonably burden the servient tenement.
- The servient owner may use and improve the servient land in ways consistent with ownership, but may not materially interfere with the dominant owner’s proper and reasonable enjoyment of the easement.

## Conclusion

The court required a text-first determination of whether the riparian-access easement authorizes dock construction and directed further proceedings to evaluate necessity and unreasonable burden limits on any dock, as well as whether the servient owners’ shoreline modifications improperly interfered with easement use.


Little v. Kin, 644 N.W.2d 375 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002)