pf_02777 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PET BELL CONU JE ST.P,MN TEL: ~ug 9,95 11:11 No.OOl P.Ol/02 . . Erwin A, PetCI'!I(III Robert C. &11 Willard t.. C('IIWC1'1IC Ro&cr A. Jen:olen t(ul1 F. Wnllhcr JDII1C1i C. Erickson'" David S. ^ndcr~l)n Thomas D. McCQrl1llc~.t Carol A. Baldwin Scott B. Crossman Caroline Hell Beckman Cindy L. DavIs Mitchell W. Converse 3]0 Rollednlc 1700 West HiB Roseville, MinncsC) , LAW OFFIC. PETERSON,BELL,CONV Telephone (612) O.1HI'UW Facsirnile (612) 631-247:; MINN~AP()LIS OFFICE 3000 Metropolitan Centre 333 South Sevetllh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-2441 AUgust 6, 1995 REPLY TO ROSEVILLF. Mr. Michael Falk Cjty Planner 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Mike: You have asked me to rosoarch whether Mrs. Ceoarnolm may have an easement across Dan Or en's property for her eewer service. Theye are two possible ways that such an easement may exist. First I Mrs. CedarhOll\a may have an easemGmt by estoppel. when a grantor conveys part of hie land to a grantee with knowledge of the grantee's intended use of that land, and where the use of that land necessarily involves some curtailment of the grantor',8 use of his retained land an easement by estoppel arises in' favor of the grantee and against the grantor. Thus, if Mr. Oren'e predecessor in title sold Mrs. Cedarholm her property knowing that her sewer service connection ran under his land, and that she woul d necessar- ily have to uSe that sewer connection, an easement by estoppel may bc present. I do not have suffioient knowledge of the history of these parcels to determine if such an ea~emenL is present, but Mrs. Cedarholm may have suff icient tacts to prove such an eascmE3nt r although she would have to prove her right to thi.s easement clearly. The second form of easement which may be present is an easement by prescription. To establish an easement by prescripLion the ~arty must prove use for the prescriptive period of 15 years and must. prove that the use wae boa tile, actual, open, continuous, and exclusive. Here, it would appear that Mrs. Cedarholm's use of the sewer connection was actual, continuous and exclusi vo. The question of whether her use was open is not as clear cut. The wei.ght of authority with regard co underground uses indicates that her use will be deemed open if a careful inspection by a person ordinarily conversant with the subject would have disclosed the use. I 'spoke briefly with Mr. Or en and he indjcated that there was nothing which would have indicated to him that the sewer pipe running through hie yard also serviced Mrs. Cedarholm's pr.operty. That is not controlling however, as the question is whether a .AI~o Admillod in lMilconeln fCivil Trial Spaci3l1st. Certified by the Civilliliualion Section of Ihe Mlnnesola St:Jlo Bar Association. -'1'h'