Blanche S. Marsh Inter Vivos Trust v. McGillvray
67 A.3d 943
Vt.2013Background
- Quechee Lakes subdivision deeds impose covenants restricting farmstead development and setbacks from Hillside Road.
- Plaintiff bought a two-lot farmstead (approximately 5.73 acres + 1 acre) with a 70-foot setback on the Farmstead and 40-foot setback on the Salable Lot as per covenants.
- In 1984 Hartford approved reconfiguring the parcels into Lot A and Lot B, with Lot B being undeveloped and access via Lot A.
- Master Plan governs zoning approvals; it defines farmstead, guest house, and setback standards and functions as an overlay to zoning regulations.
- Plaintiff built a dwelling on Lot A (1985-1986) with a guest quarters above a garage; Lot B remained undeveloped.
- Civil court later held that Lot B’s proposed dwelling would violate covenants, despite Environmental Division allowing Lot B under Master Plan for zoning purposes; plaintiff appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the neighbors’ § 505 covenant-enforcement claims are timely. | Statute of limitations runs from breach; actions by 1987 should bar. | Not precluded; accrual occurs at breach and discovery not necessary. | No, accrual at breach; claims timely only to extent tied to specific breaches. |
| Whether Civil Division could adjudicate covenants despite Environmental Division ruling on Master Plan. | Environmental Division decision forecloses further private-property rights questions. | Private property rights are separate matters; civil division has jurisdiction over covenants. | Civil division has jurisdiction; Environmental Division decision not controlling on covenants. |
| Whether the deed restrictions unambiguously require Lot B to be built exactly at set distances, or allow the setback as minimum only, | |||
| and whether extrinsic evidence was properly considered. | Language ambiguous; extrinsic evidence should illuminate intent and support Lot B construction. | Language unambiguous; extrinsic evidence improperly considered if language clear. | Deed language ambiguous; extrinsic context properly considered; construction beyond setback line barred. |
| Whether the guest-house on Lot A can be treated as a second dwelling or as a nonconforming use affecting Lot B's development. | Guest house on Lot A not a second dwelling; should not bar Lot B dwelling. | Guest house effectively constitutes a second dwelling; restricts Lot B. | Guest house not permissible under covenants; however, statute of limitations bars some relief and Lot B relief hinges on setback analysis. |
| Whether a change in neighborhood character invalidates the covenants. | Development has deviated from original plan; covenants obsolete. | Deed restrictions remain enforceable; change in character not proven to invalidate covenants. | Court declines to invalidly void covenants on change-of-character grounds; evidence insufficient to terminate covenants. |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. White, 136 Vt. 271 (1978) (statute accrues when action can be first sued on)
- Girsh v. St. John, 218 S.W.3d 921 (Tex. App. 2007) (enforcement accrues upon breach of covenant)
- In re Tariff Filing of Cent. Vt. Pub. Serv. Corp., 172 Vt. 14 (2001) (res judicata and collateral estoppel scope governed by final judgments)
- In re Woodstock Cmty. Trust & Hous., 2012 VT 87 (Vt. 2012) (Environmental Division does not determine private property rights)
- Nordlund v. Van Nostrand, 2011 VT 79 (Vt. 2011) (private covenants vs. master plans interplay limits)
- McDonough v. W. W. Snow Const. Co., 131 Vt. 436 (1973) (deed restrictions enforceable to protect view)
- El Di, Inc. v. Town of Bethany Beach, 477 A.2d 1066 (Del. 1984) (change in neighborhood character as defense to covenants requires substantial showing)