If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS NANCY K. GLASSER, as Trustee of the NANCY UNPUBLISHED K. GLASSER TRUST, NANCY GLASSER, October 20, 2022 JOSEPH C. SCOTT, MARIA F. SCOTT, EDWARD LABARGE, MAUREEN LABARGE, RICHARD B. GLASSER, as Trustee of the RICHARD B. GLASSER TRUST, and LEANN GLASSER, as Trustee of the LEANN GLASSER TRUST, Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants- Appellants, v No. 357166 Otsego Circuit Court MICHAEL P. SCOTT and JANE SCOTT, LC No. 19-017588-CH Defendants/Counterplaintiffs- Appellees. Before: MARKEY, P.J., and SAWYER and BOONSTRA, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs and counterdefendants—Nancy K. Glasser, as trustee of the Nancy K. Glasser Trust; Nancy Glasser, individually (NG); Joseph C. Scott (Joseph); Maria F. Scott; Edward LaBarge; Maureen LaBarge; Richard B. Glasser (RG), as trustee of the Richard B. Glasser Trust; and LeAnn Glasser, as trustee of the LeAnn Glasser Trust—appeal by right an extensive and thoughtful opinion and order issued by the trial court following a bench trial. The trial court ruled that plaintiffs did not have an easement over part of a circular driveway located on the property of defendants and counterplaintiffs, Michael Scott (Michael) and Jane Scott (Jane). Plaintiffs challenge various rulings made by the trial court in its opinion and order, along with disputing an earlier decision by the court on a motion for summary disposition. At the summary disposition hearing the trial court ruled that only plaintiff NG was entitled to use a certain 1959 express easement, which did not correspond to the circular driveway. On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the trial court improperly considered hearsay testimony at trial, erred by concluding that no easement by prescription existed over the circular driveway, and wrongfully determined that the 1959 express easement applied only to NG. We disagree with these arguments and affirm. -1- I. BASIC FACTS In the 1880s, a man with the surname “Hallenius” immigrated to the United States and acquired a 150-acre farm bordering Lake 27 in Elmira, near Gaylord in Otsego County. The land was eventually divided among family members. Vila Hallenius (Vila), who is now deceased, ended up owning a large portion of the property east of Lake 27. Of import to this case, after the death of her brother Bud Hallenius, Vila became the owner of property north of lot 10 as identified on a survey of “Hallenius Estates.”1 She sold sections of this property (lots 11, 12, and 13) to the Glasser family, and in 1996, Joseph bought a portion of lot 112 on which a house, built by the Glassers in approximately 1992, was situated. This is Joseph’s current vacation home, which he often uses as a rental property. In this opinion, we will refer to this house on a portion of lot 11 as “the Glasser/JS House.” Very near the Glasser/JS House, but a bit to the south and located on lot 10, is a house built in approximately 1963; the home is currently …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals