Thomas M. Benoit & a. v. Joseph A. Cerasaro, Trustee of the Joseph A. Cerasaro Revocable Trust & a.

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment enforcing a subdivision declaration governing common land, easements, and restrictions after the land was acquired at a tax sale. The court held that the declaration vested upon recording and was not extinguished by the tax sale, rejected the plaintiffs’ laches and equitable-relief arguments, and upheld the order requiring conveyance of the common land to a homeowners association once formed.

Holdings

1. The tax sale did not extinguish the declaration as a matter of law. Any alleged overvaluation of the servient estate resulting from failure to account for easements and restrictions was a matter for tax-abatement proceedings, not a basis for extinguishing the recorded interests.
2. The easements and restrictions vested when the declaration was recorded in 1974 and were not extinguished by the later tax sale.
3. The redemption argument did not apply because the tax sale did not extinguish the declaration, leaving no declaration-based interests for the defendants to redeem. The plaintiffs' additional theory that the defendants' ownership rights were extinguished was not considered because it was not raised below.
4. Laches did not bar enforcement because the defendants' delay was not unreasonable in the circumstances and the plaintiffs failed to show that the defendants knew of misconduct requiring enforcement before the plaintiffs sought a variance to develop the common land.
5. The trial court did not improperly determine that the plaintiffs lacked fee-simple title; it ordered conveyance based on the declaration's requirement that the common land be conveyed to the association after more than 51 percent of the lots had been sold. The plaintiffs' takings argument was inadequately developed and was not addressed.
6. The plaintiffs were not entitled to the requested equitable relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the tax sale extinguished the declaration's easements and restrictions under a tax-assessment theory.
2. Whether the declaration's easements and restrictions failed to vest because the homeowners association was never formed or because title was never transferred to it.
3. Whether the defendants' failure to redeem after notice of the tax sale extinguished their rights under the declaration.
4. Whether laches barred enforcement of the declaration.
5. Whether the trial court improperly ordered conveyance of the common land to the association without compensation or determined that the plaintiffs held less than fee-simple title.
6. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to equitable relief requiring the subdivision residents to purchase the common land and reimburse their expenses.
7. Whether the plaintiffs' tax-abatement argument demonstrated that the declaration was extinguished by the tax sale.

Disposition

affirmed