Windham Land Trust v. Jeffords

967 A.2d 690 (2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ds hold title to 100 acres of land. There are no deed restrictions on the front fifteen acres. The rear eighty-five acres are subject to a conservation easement. The Conservation Easement deed placed restrictions on the purposes for which the grantor, and its transferees, assignees, and successors-in-interest, could use the Protected Parcel. The deed states that the 'dominant purpose' of the Conservation Easement is: To preserve and protect in perpetuity the natural, open space, scenic, aesthetic and ecological features and values of the Property while not limiting the Grantor's power to utilize the property for residential, recreational purposes. In so doing, it is the purpose of this Easement to foster responsible conservation practices while permitting Grantor to engage in certain recreational uses on the Property. Ds expressly agreed to be bound by the Conservation Easement when they acquired the land. Ds plan to use the logging roads for wagon rides and horse-drawn sleigh rides, hiking, snowshoeing, and Nordic skiing, and to use a pond on the Protected Parcel for fishing and ice skating, all made available to 'their paying guests.' Ds claim that, in late 2005 and mid-2006, when they were formulating their planned uses of the Protected Parcel, P's attorney told them that the Conservation Easement deed does not prohibit earning money from activities permitted under the deed and that the then-proposed campsites would not violate the deed. Ps contend that they relied to their detriment upon the statements by P's attorney in preparing their 2007 financial plan. Ds also contend that the Freeman family intended the Protected Parcel to be used for horseback riding and horseback riding lessons, as evidenced by a 'letter to the editor' written by a member of the Freeman family. P filed a complaint against the Ds alleging that Ds' use of the Protected Parcel for commercial purposes interfered with P's Conservation Easement. P sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The court granted P's motion for summary judgment, in that the Conservation Easement does not permit commercial use of the Protected Parcel. Ds appealed.