Choquette v. Roy, 114 A.3d 713

Background

Raymond and Pamela Choquette owned ~400 acres in Pittsburg, subdivided and sold lots with various (nonuniform) restrictive covenants; a 2002 subdivision application contained a set of uniform covenants that were not recorded with the deeds at that time.
In 1999 the Choquettes sold a 103-acre tract to P.E. Roy; the deed granted two rights-of-way (a 50-foot ROW not built, and a 20-foot ROW — Roy Boulevard — built as a driveway) and allocated maintenance while Roy was sole user.
Roy Boulevard connects to Sugar Shack R.O.W. (a road owned by Raymond Choquette) which connects to Hall Stream Road; the deed to Roy did not expressly grant an easement over Sugar Shack R.O.W., but Roy has used and maintained Sugar Shack R.O.W. to access his parcel.
The Choquettes later conveyed other lots (Lot 33-12 to the Robichauds’ predecessor and Lot 33-13 to a Roy trust) by warranty deeds containing restrictive covenants materially different from the subdivision-application covenants; the Choquettes later sought to amend/reform those deeds to include the application covenants, and the buyers objected.
The Choquettes sued to (1) prohibit Roy’s use/maintenance of Sugar Shack R.O.W. and Roy Boulevard and (2) reform the deeds to include the application covenants; respondents counterclaimed for breach of title and sought attorneys’ fees. The trial court (bench) denied reformation, found an implied easement for Roy to use Sugar Shack R.O.W. but ruled Roy could not maintain it, treated Roy Boulevard as a common right-of-way, and denied respondents’ fee claims. Parties appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Roy has a right to use Sugar Shack R.O.W.	Choquettes: deed contains no easement; merger extinguishes purchase agreement promises	Roy: purchase agreement and use/history support access; easement by implication	Court: Affirmed implied easement — facts supported easement by implication (use, necessity, intent)
Whether Roy may maintain Sugar Shack R.O.W.	Choquettes: they alone have the right to maintain; Roy’s maintenance was improper	Roy: dominant estate holder has right/duty to maintain easement unless limited	Court: Reversed trial court — Roy, as dominant tenant, has right and duty to maintain absent contrary agreement; remanded to decide interference issues if necessary
Whether deeds to Jason Roy and the Robichauds should be reformed to add subdivision covenants	Choquettes: mutual mistake — deeds do not reflect parties’ true agreement; reformation appropriate	Jason Roy/Robichauds: deeds as written control; no clear and convincing proof of mistake	Court: Affirmed denial of reformation — petitioners failed to meet heavy burden of clear and convincing evidence
Whether respondents are entitled to attorneys’ fees under warranty deed statute (RSA 477:27)	Respondents: statute’s covenant to "warrant and defend" requires grantor to pay defense costs for challenges to deeds	Choquettes: suits sought reformation (not a third-party title challenge); statute doesn’t apply	Court: Affirmed denial — suits were reformation (not challenges covered by covenant of warranty), so RSA 477:27 did not authorize fees; Roy’s suit re: Sugar Shack R.O.W. also did not invoke the statute

Key Cases Cited

Wells v. Company, 47 N.H. 235 (discussing merger doctrine for contracts and deeds)
Russell v. Hixon, 117 N.H. 35 (merger doctrine principles)
Blaisdell v. Raab, 132 N.H. 711 (criteria for easement by implication)
Village Green Condo. Ass’n v. Hodges, 167 N.H. 497 (dominant tenant’s right and duty to maintain easement)
White v. Hotel Co., 68 N.H. 38 (right to make a way passable for purposes of grant)
Gagnon v. Pronovost, 97 N.H. 58 (reformation requires instrument not to express true agreement)
Sommers v. Sommers, 143 N.H. 686 (heavy burden of proof for reformation)
Coco v. Jaskunas, 159 N.H. 515 (interpretation of covenant of warranty and duty to defend)
Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (statutory interpretation principles)
Mullin v. Eaton, 19 A. 371 (equity’s limited jurisdiction to reform instruments)