Court Of Appeals Finds Trial Court Erred In Limiting Easement Use And Imposing Nuisance Liability

Barnard v. J.G. Pray’s Subdivision Homeowner’s Association

• Opinion Published: April 1, 2026 (Korobkin, P.J., Yates and Feeney, J.J.)

• COA Docket No. 370541

• Washtenaw County Circuit Court

Holding: The trial court cannot restrict use of an easement when neither the easement itself nor past practice supports that restriction. Additionally, the trial court erred in finding the Association liable for nuisance as there were no findings of fact supporting the nuisance claim and any conduct that disrupted Plaintiffs enjoyment of their property was the conduct of individual subdivision owners, not the Association. Accordingly, the judgments were vacated, the verdict against the Association was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Facts: In 2009, Plaintiffs purchased property on Whitmore Lake that has been servient to an easement since 1920. The 1920 easement burdened two properties and gave all property owners in the adjoining subdivision lake access and use of the dock on the shore of the property burdened by the easement. Notably, the recorded easement did not state the manner or extent to which the land and dock could be used. Throughout the easement’s existence, the length of the dock varied from 20 feet to 70 feet.

In 1987, the subdivision owners filed a lawsuit after an owner of property servient to the easement started interfering with the subdivision owner’s ability to use the easement. That lawsuit led to the creation of the J.G. Pray’s Subdivision Homeowners Association in 1991. The Association collected dues and maintained the easement. In 1992, the trial court issued a judgment establishing the location of the easement and listing activities the easement could be used for. One of the servient property owners appealed, after which the trial court issued a supplemental order that stated, among other things, that the dock could only be 30 feet long, that subdivision owners could not store boats on the easement, and that the order would automatically expire once the Court of Appeals issued a ruling on the case. That ruling came in 1995.

After Plaintiffs purchased the property, use of the easement began to increase, with the height of the use including kayaks, moored boats, golf carts, and inflatable islands on the easement. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in 2022 against the subdivision owners and the Association with claims of trespass and nuisance and sought enforcement of the expired 1992 supplemental order. The trial court found the Association liable for nuisance and assessed $5,000 in damages. The trial court also issued an order restricting the length of the dock to 30 feet and required subdivision owners to only use the east side of the dock to provide a buffer to Plaintiffs. The Association appeals.

Key Appellate Rulings:

When the text of an easement is ambiguous, a trial court may consider extrinsic evidence to determine the scope of the easement.

An expired supplemental order directing the use of an easement is extrinsic evidence that can be considered. However, it must be considered along with all the other evidence presented. If there are facts that show an easement’s customary use has varied over time, all of those uses must be considered before a trial court can place restrictions on an easement.

Activities on an easement cannot be shifted without the interests of all servient property owners being considered.

When multiple properties are servient to an easement, the interest of the owners of all servient properties must be allowed to be heard. A trial court cannot shift the burden of an easement closer to one servient property when the owners of that servient property were not given the chance to present their interests before the court.

A finding of nuisance requires the accused party to be the legal cause of the invasion.

To be liable for nuisance, an actor’s conduct must be the legal cause of the invasion. Additionally, the actor must have caused significant harm to a landowner by unreasonably interfering with the landowner’s use and enjoyment of their property. When there is no finding of fact concerning a nuisance claim, significant harm cannot be proven. Additionally, if an association is being accused of nuisance, the accusing party must provide evidence that the association itself caused harm, and not just individual owners who are part of the association.