Summary
The Supreme Court of Vermont affirmed a trial court's construction of a deed granting plaintiffs a triangular easement on the defendant's adjoining property. The court held that the deed was ambiguous as to the easement's location, allowing consideration of extrinsic evidence, but unambiguously limited its use to lumber storage and garage space rather than ingress and egress. The court also upheld denial of damages and rejected the plaintiffs' challenge to their jury-trial waiver.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the deed's description of the easement was ambiguous and, if so, whether the trial court properly used extrinsic evidence to determine the easement's location.
- Whether the deed granted plaintiffs an implied or express right of ingress and egress across defendant's property.
- Whether alleged exclusions or limitations on evidence concerning the parties' intent constituted reversible error.
- Whether plaintiffs were entitled to damages for defendant's removal of the gate, fence, gravel, or other structures.
- Whether plaintiffs waived their right to a jury trial in open court under V.R.C.P. 39(a)(1).
Holdings
- The deed's description of an easement that was twenty-seven feet wide at its widest point and that followed an existing fence line was ambiguous because the fence-line language could reasonably be interpreted in more than one way. The trial court properly considered extrinsic evidence to determine the parties' intent and correctly construed the easement as a twenty-seven-foot-wide triangular area running parallel to the fence line.
- The easement did not include a right of ingress and egress because the deed unambiguously limited its use to storing lumber and providing garage space.
- Any error in excluding or limiting portions of plaintiffs' evidence concerning intent was harmless because the witnesses otherwise testified about the relevant subject and plaintiffs failed to show that the rulings affected their substantial rights.
- Plaintiffs were not entitled to damages for the removal of structures and improvements placed outside the easement because their improvements constituted trespasses on defendant's land.
- Plaintiffs waived their right to a jury trial because the trial court's video recording showed that the waiver occurred in open court and on the record, as required by V.R.C.P. 39(a)(1).
Key quotations
“Our master rule in construing a deed is that "the intent of the parties governs."” (478)
“Because the deed was ambiguous, the court properly considered extrinsic evidence to discern the parties' intent.” (479)
“The language used in this particular portion of the deed is unambiguous, and it plainly does not include the right of ingress and egress.” (480)
“We will disregard errors that do not affect parties' substantial rights.” (481)
Factual background
Plaintiffs owned Lot 5, a commercial property used for a lumber and hardware business, adjoining defendant's Lot 3 in Milton, Vermont. Their deed granted an easement across Lot 3 for storing lumber and garage space, describing it as twenty-seven feet wide at its widest point and following an existing fence line. After defendant acquired Lot 3, plaintiffs expanded and improved the area, including by adding gravel, extending a fence, and installing a gate for truck access; defendant removed those improvements. The trial court found that the easement was a twenty-seven-foot-wide triangular area running parallel to, rather than extending to, the fence line, and that it did not include ingress or egress.
Procedural history
Defendant moved for partial summary judgment and plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied both motions because the deed was ambiguous and disputed factual issues required trial. After a three-day bench trial, the court construed the easement as a twenty-seven-foot-wide triangular area running parallel to an existing fence line, rejected plaintiffs' claimed right of ingress and egress, denied damages, and found that plaintiffs had waived a jury trial. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed.