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

SONIA M. BEGGS, individually and as personal UNPUBLISHED representative for the ESTATE OF JAMES L. June 23, 2022 BEGGS, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellee, v No. 354797 Oceana Circuit Court STEVEN P. FREED, LC No. 19-013888-CH Defendant/Counterplaintiff-Appellant.

Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and SHAPIRO and GADOLA, JJ.

SHAPIRO, J. (concurring).

I concur, though I do not subscribe to a portion of the majority’s opinion. The majority concludes that the language of the easement is unambiguous. I believe the trial court properly concluded that the provision was ambiguous as to whether the “exclusive easement” was intended to bar the owners of the servient estate from using their own property or to prevent a second easement over that land being granted to some third party. Despite my difference with the majority on this aspect of the analysis, because the extrinsic evidence makes the intent of the parties clear, I agree with its conclusion that the easement was to be exclusive even as against the owners of the servient estate. As to the issue regarding the scope of the easement, specifically with regard to construction of a fence, I agree fully with the majority.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro

-1-