§6.4 Michigan Real Property Law
214
An easement is the right which one proprietor has to some profit, benefit or lawful
use, out of, or over, the estate of another proprietor: [Ritger v Parker, 62 Mass 145
(1851)]; Washb. on Easements, 4. It does not displace the general possession by the
owner of the land, but the person entitled to the easement has a qualified possession
only, so far as may be needful for its enjoyment: Washb. on Easements, 8. But there
may also be a tenancy in respect to the lands flowed, or to the right to flow. A tenancy
exists where one has let real estate to another, to hold of him as landlord. When duly
created and the tenant put in possession, he is owner of an estate for the time being,
and has all the usual rights and remedies of an owner to defend his possession. But a
tenancy does not necessarily imply a right to complete and exclusive possession; it
may, on the other hand, be created with implied or express reservation of a right to
possession on the part of the landlord, for all purposes not inconsistent with the priv-
ileges granted to the tenant. One who on the land of another, puts in a single crop on
shares, is held not to be a lessee: [Hare v Celey], Cro. Eliz., §143. But this does not
seem to be because his possession is not exclusive; but because, it being for the inter-
est of the owner of the land that they should be tenants in common of the growing
crop, their contract will be presumed to have contemplated that relation. See [Bishop
v Doty, 1 Vt 37 (1827); Bradish v Schenck, 8 Johns 151, 1811 NY LEXIS 96 (1811);
De Mott v Hagerman, 8 Cow 220, 1828 NY LEXIS 293 (1828)]. And in the leading
case, while it is held that there is no tenancy if the agreement is for a single crop, it is
said it will be “otherwise if it be for two or three crops:” Hare v. Celey, Cro. Eliz.,
§143. Though doubtless the owner of the land might, in that case equally as in the
other, retain the general possession, while the cultivator would have the qualified
possession essential for his purposes. In any case, the intent of the parties, as gathered
from their contract, would be the governing consideration in determining the nature
of the relation between them, and the proposed duration of that relation would be one
of the most important circumstances to be considered in arriving at that intent.
Morrill v Mackman, 24 Mich 279, 284–285 (1872).
In United Coin Meter Co v Gibson, 109 Mich App 652, 655–656, 311 NW2d
442 (1981), the court distinguished a license from a lease, holding:
A license is a permission to do some act or series of acts on the land of the licensor
without having any permanent interest in the land … . A lease, on the other hand,
gives the tenant possession of the property leased and exclusive use or occupation of
it for all purposes not prohibited by the terms of the lease.
Accord Macke Laundry Serv Co v Overgaard, 173 Mich App 250, 433 NW2d 813
(1988) (also noting that valid lease must contain parties’ names, adequate description
of premises, amount of rent, and length of term).
III. Types of Easements
§6.4 There are two types of easements: easements appurtenant and ease-
ments in gross. An easement appurtenant serves or benefits one parcel of land by
passing over or burdening another. An easement appurtenant is incident to and neces-
sarily connected with the use or enjoyment of the benefited parcel, and it passes with
the benefited property when the property is transferred. See McClintic-Marshall Co v
Ford Motor Co, 254 Mich 305, 236 NW 792 (1931). See generally Michigan Land
Title Standards 5th 14.1. See §6.25. An easement appurtenant is incapable of exist-
ence separate and apart from the particular land to which it is annexed. Schadewald v
© 2015 The Institute of Continuing Legal Education | 1020 Greene Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1444 | www.icle.org
[email protected] | Phone 877-229-4350 or 734-764-0533 | Fax 877-229-4351 or 734-763-2412 | M-F 8:00am-5:00pm