Brault v. Welch
97 A.3d 914
Vt.2014Background
- Braults own home on Broadlake Road; Welch owns adjacent lakefront lot; 1978 deed from Griffiths to Braults’ predecessors conveys a five‑foot right of way to the lake along the existing block wall and southerly thereof; Braults’ 1996 deed to their property includes the right of way but omits “southerly thereof”; Welch’s deed to her lot did not refer to the right of way; wall and boundary uncertainties existed; trial court found the language unambiguous and ruled for Welch; Braults sought declaratory judgment and later moved for Rule 59 relief with a survey that contested the location of the easement; court denied relief and entered judgment for Welch, which the Braults appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the right-of-way description ambiguous? | Braults: language is ambiguous due to southerly thereof | Welch: language unambiguous, Southerly thereof modifies the easement | No ambiguity; enforce deed as written |
| Does parol evidence support reformation or ambiguity? | Braults: extrinsic evidence should show intent; possible reformation | Welch: no ambiguity; parol evidence not to rewrite deed | Parol evidence insufficient to create ambiguity or support reformation |
| Was reformation appropriate to correct drafting error? | Braults: could reform to reflect northerly location | Welch: not pled; no basis for reformation | Reformation not warranted; not pled; no basis shown |
| Was the motion to alter or amend properly denied? | Braults: should reopen evidence or admit survey | Welch: court has broad discretion; survey would not change outcome | Court did not abuse discretion; denial affirmed |
| Should the survey have been admitted or considered? | Braults: survey constitutes newly discovered evidence | Welch: not newly discovered or qualifying under Rule 59 | Survey properly excluded or not controlling; outcome unchanged |
Key Cases Cited
- Main St. Landing, LLC v. Lake St. Ass’n, 179 Vt. 583 (VT 2006) (ambiguity standard in deed interpretation; de novo review pleaded facts)
- DeGraff v. Burnett, 182 Vt. 314 (VT 2007) (master rule: ambiguity governs unless clear language; extrinsic evidence limited)
- Kipp v. Estate of Chips, 732 A.2d 127 (VT 1999) (circumstances surrounding making of agreement allowed limited extrinsic evidence)
- Cassani v. Hale, 187 Vt. 336 (VT 2010) (deed reformation when necessary to reflect true transaction)
- LaRock v. Hill, 131 Vt. 528 (VT 1973) (reformation appropriate where mistake in conveyance)
- Wead v. St. Johnsbury & L.C.R. Co., 64 Vt. 52 (VT 1892) (parol evidence to explain deed, not vary it)
- Pitts v. Brown, 49 Vt. 86 (VT 1876) (parol evidence to show drafting error not admissible to alter deed)
- Thomas v. Farrell, 153 Vt. 12 (VT 1989) (parol evidence limited by parol evidence rule)