Ettinger v. Oyster Bay II Cmty. Prop. Owners' Ass'n
296 Va. 280
| Va. | 2018Background
- Parcel E in Oyster Bay II, Accomack County, is owned by Philip P. Ettinger; its deed describes it as bounded on the northeast by Hibiscus Drive and states the parcel contains 196,670 sq. ft., referencing a recorded subdivision plat.
- Titles trace to developer First Chincoteague Corporation, which recorded the subdivision plat in 1972 and later conveyed Parcel E separately.
- The Oyster Bay II Community Property Owners’ Association received a 1979 quitclaim from the developer conveying its rights, if any, in streets and other real estate in the community.
- The Association erected a fence and no-trespassing signs along Hibiscus Drive, blocking Ettinger’s access to the strip between the road edge and the centerline.
- Ettinger sued for a declaration that Parcel E’s boundary extends to the centerline of Hibiscus Drive (or, alternatively, that Parcel E has a right-of-way). The circuit court held Parcel E extended only to the road edge; Ettinger appealed.
- The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed deed construction de novo and considered whether the deed’s boundary phrase, acreage designation, and plat reference rebut the rule that a conveyance bounded by a way carries title to the center of the way.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a deed describing land as "bounded by Hibiscus Drive" conveys title to the centerline of the road | Ettinger: ordinary rule applies; boundary to a way carries title to centerline | Association: deed’s acreage and plat reference show intent to limit conveyance to road edge | Held: Deed conveys to centerline; no contrary intent shown |
| Whether the stated acreage rebuts presumption that boundary includes center of road | Ettinger: acreage is subordinate to definite boundary call | Association: 196,670 sq. ft. indicates exclusion of roadbed | Held: Quantity designation is least certain and yields to boundary description |
| Whether reference to recorded subdivision plat rebuts presumption | Ettinger: mere reference to plat does not show contrary intent; plat may depict centerline | Association: plat/survey lines indicate edge-only conveyance | Held: Plat reference alone does not express contrary intent; rule still applies |
| Whether final judgment can be entered on stipulated record | Ettinger: facts fully developed in record; final judgment appropriate | Association: (argued below) | Held: Court entered final judgment for Ettinger on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Garner, 286 Va. 76 (rule: conveyance bounded by a way carries title to its center absent contrary intent)
- Tidewater Area Charities, Inc. v. Harbour Gate Owners Ass’n, 240 Va. 221 (reservation of roadbed must be express; no presumption)
- Durbin v. Roanoke Bldg. Co., 107 Va. 753 (historic statement of the centerline presumption and rationale)
- Spainhour v. B. Aubrey Huffman & Assocs., Ltd., 237 Va. 340 (quantity/acreage calls yield to definite boundary descriptions)
- Providence Props., Inc. v. United Va. Bank, 219 Va. 735 (deed construction looks to the entire instrument)