Mansur v. Muskopf

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed a Superior Court ruling that an easement benefiting a non-waterfront lot extended to seventy-five feet of the shoreline shown on a recorded subdivision plan, even though a later conveyance altered the boundary between the reserved lot and an adjoining lot. The court held that the easement continued with the burdened land and that subsequent purchasers of the adjoining lot had constructive and inquiry notice of the recorded easement. The court also rejected the appellants’ standing and procedural arguments concerning the petitioners’ claim of trespass.

Holdings

1. The easement granted the Mansurs a continuing right to cross and recross the Reserved Lot to access and use seventy-five feet, more or less, of Lake Winnipesaukee shoreline measured from the concrete monument at the Reserved Lot's southeast corner, even though a later conveyance altered the boundary and left only approximately thirty-four feet of shoreline within the Reserved Lot.
2. Muskopf and Allain purchased lot 18 with notice of the recorded seventy-five-foot easement because a proper search of their chain of title, the grantor index, and the recorded subdivision plan would have revealed the easement and the boundary discrepancy affecting their shoreline.
3. The Mansurs had standing to litigate whether the respondents' construction interfered with their deeded easement rights, and any mislabeling of the claim as trespass did not warrant reversal absent material prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the easement granted in the 1958 deed extended to seventy-five feet of shoreline measured from the Reserved Lot's southeast concrete monument, notwithstanding the later adjustment of the boundary between lot 18 and the Reserved Lot.
2. Whether the easement was enforceable against Muskopf and Allain as bona fide purchasers when it did not appear in their direct chain of title.
3. Whether the Mansurs had standing to litigate interference with their easement rights and whether characterization of their claim as trespass constituted reversible error.

Disposition

affirmed