33 A.3d 1109
N.H.2011Background
- Neighbors own adjacent parcels in Hopkinton; petitioners own three lots, one adjoining respondent's lot.
- Petitioners sought to quiet title to two easements claimed by respondent: a well easement and a right‑of‑way to an “ice pond.”
- Trial court held respondent has no well easement due to impossibility to use the identified well, but found a deeded right‑of‑way to access an ice pond intact.
- Deeds describe the well easement as the right to a well on petitioners’ land and a right‑of‑way to maintain water flow between the well and the premises.
- The court interpreted the easement as a right to draw water from a specific well, not a general water supply, and found the well could not be located and had not been used for decades.
- For the ice pond easement, the court held the easement exists despite no current ice pond, as the description referenced the location rather than the pond's current existence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does impossibility of purpose extinguish a well easement? | Chevion argues easement preserves water supply, not just the well. | Boissy maintains easement is to maintain water flow from a specific well; impossibility ends it. | Yes; easement extinguished when purpose is impossible. |
| What is the proper interpretation of the well easement by deed language? | Chevion contends the language grants a water supply via the well. | Boissy contends the language grants the right to a specific well and not a general supply. | Easement is for the right to draw water from a particular well. |
| Who bears the burden of proving extinguishment by impossibility of purpose? | Chevion argues the burden is on petitioners to show extinction. | Boissy argues she bears the burden to prove the easement remains. | The burden lies with the party asserting extinguishment; court applied correctly. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion by excluding respondent's expert witness? | Chevion claims exclusion was unfair under discovery rules. | Boissy asserts timely and complete disclosures were not provided; exclusion was justified. | No; trial court properly precluded expert testimony for untimely/incomplete disclosure. |
| Does the ice pond deeded right‑of‑way extinguish if the ice pond no longer exists? | Chevion asserts the right‑of‑way concerns the ice pond itself. | Boissy argues the right‑of‑way's location and description survive irrespective of pond existence. | Not extinguished; easement remains as location description governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gowing v. Lehmann, 98 N.H. 414 (N.H. 1953) (easement to take water from a well does not obligate supplying water or operating pumps)
- DeForge v. Balint, 128 N.H. 452 (N.H. 1986) (easement to draw water and enter for pipe maintenance; no obligation to supply water)
- Surprise v. Ferris, 2004 WL 2165171 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004) (cessation of purpose; extinguishment when new well undermines original purpose)
- Cricenti v. Bewley, 120 N.H. 352 (N.H. 1980) (abandonment or loss of water rights when related structure falls into disrepair)
- Gagnon v. Carrier, 96 N.H. 409 (N.H. 1951) (relevance; easement issue focused on abandonment; not controlling for purpose here)