Little v. Kin
Michigan Court of Appeals
644 N.W.2d 375 (2002)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
After a fire gutted a restaurant on Pine Lake in 1974, the owner subdivided the property into six lots, with two “frontlots” designated lot A and B, each on 100 feet of shoreline, and four “backlots,” C, D, E, and F, behind them without shoreline. The owner provided all lots access to the lake by dividing the frontlots into three 33-foot sections giving the frontlot owners exclusive use of one section, and recording an easement for the backlot owners to use the remainder “for access to and use of the riparian rights to Pine Lake.” In 1977, Robert and Barbara Little (plaintiffs) bought frontlot B for $40,000. Thomas and Darle Trivan (defendants) bought backlot F in the late 1980s for $555,000, and Steven and Rosalyn Kin (defendants) bought backlot D for $475,000 in 1995. The previous owners of the Kins’ lot had built a dock on the easement in 1988 that they used for boating, sunbathing, and picnicking, and the Trivans and Kins continued using the dock. In 1998, the Littles sued to remove the dock and prevent the backlot owners from building another one. The Trivans and Kins counterclaimed that the Littles had installed landscaping that interfered with their use of the easement. The trial court grant the Littles summary judgment. The Trivans and Kins appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Saad, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
