## Facts

- In November 1968, Elmer R. Schmidt (plaintiff) leased two parcels of industrial land to a company controlled by Frank Eger and related defendants (defendants).
- After the lease began, Schmidt acquired an additional adjacent area at the southern end of the leased property and allowed it to become part of the leasehold.
- In 1969, Schmidt developed the added area by establishing a lawn and constructing (or substantially altering) a drainage ditch and related drainage features that carried water from other Schmidt-owned land across the leasehold area.
- The parties disputed whether any ditch existed on the added area before the leasehold began; defendants maintained the ditch was constructed only after they took possession under the lease.
- In 1972, litigation arose concerning an option to purchase contained in the lease; the dispute ended in a consent judgment leading to defendants acquiring title to the leased property.
- In June 1973, defendants purchased the property they had been leasing, including the area containing the ditch and drainage structures.
- In October 1973, defendants notified Schmidt they intended to grade and level the ditch area, which would eliminate the ditch and associated drainage facilities.
- Schmidt sued to enjoin defendants from altering the ditch, claiming he had drainage rights across defendants’ land, including an easement by implication. Schmidt offered evidence that replacing the drainage system would require substantial work and cost at least $30,000.
- The trial court ruled for defendants after trial. Schmidt appealed following an earlier appeal and remand in the same dispute.

## Issues

1. Whether Schmidt proved an implied easement by reservation for drainage over defendants’ land based on prior use at the time the parties’ property interests were severed.
2. Whether the drainage use was permanent, continuous, and apparent at the time of severance.
3. Whether Michigan’s surface-water (natural-flow) rules gave Schmidt a right to continue using an artificial ditch across defendants’ land.
4. Whether the lease or subsequent deed created or preserved an express drainage easement in Schmidt’s favor.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for defendants and denied injunctive relief.
- Schmidt failed to establish an implied easement by reservation because the ditch was not shown to be an existing, apparent servitude at the time of severance, which the court treated as the 1968 lease.
- The court rejected Schmidt’s natural-flow argument because the claimed right depended on maintaining an artificial drainage system on defendants’ land, not protecting a natural watercourse.
- The court found no express easement in the lease or deed language sufficient to grant or reserve a drainage easement.

## Legal Principles

- An easement by implication based on prior use may arise upon severance of property interests only when, at the time of severance, the use is (1) permanent and apparent (obvious on reasonable inspection), (2) continuous, and (3) reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the benefited land.
- For an implied easement by reservation claimed by the grantor, Michigan applies a reasonable-necessity standard, but the claimant must still prove the use existed and was apparent at severance.
- A use created after severance cannot support an implied easement by prior use because the required quasi-easement must be in place when the estate is divided.
- Surface-water doctrines do not, by themselves, give a landowner a right to maintain an artificial drainage ditch across another’s land without an enforceable servitude.
- General or boilerplate language in a lease or deed (without a specific grant or reservation) does not create an express drainage easement.

## Conclusion

Because the drainage ditch was not proven to be an existing, apparent, continuous servitude at the time the parties’ interests were severed by the 1968 lease, Schmidt could not establish an implied easement by reservation; and because neither natural-flow rules nor the lease/deed language supplied a separate enforceable right to keep the artificial drainage system on defendants’ property, the court affirmed the denial of an injunction.


Schmidt v. Eger, 289 N.W.2d 851 (1980)