Opinion
No. 122233.
April 1, 2003.
SC: 122233, COA: 236131, Menominee CC: 99-008945-CH
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal from the June 7, 2002 decision of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(F)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the analysis of the Court of Appeals to the extent that it holds that the limiting language in the easement in this case is to be disregarded. Todd v Nobach, 368 Mich. 544 (1962), relied upon by the Court of Appeals, does not stand for the proposition that an easement appurtenant may not be limited as to the persons who benefit from the easement. An express easement such as the instant easement is based on the intent to create the easement. Forge v Smith, 458 Mich. 198, 205 (1998). In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeals is DENIED because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Kelly, J., would grant or deny leave to appeal, but would not decide the case by peremptory order.