Jeffrey D. Hayes and Deborah Hayes McGraw v. Mountain View Estates Homeowners Association
188 A.3d 678
Vt.2018Background
- Richard and Nadine Hayes developed Mountain View Estates in Manchester; subdivision included private roads and portions of water and sewer infrastructure. Richard maintained roads and the privately owned portions of water/sewer without charging homeowners from ~1981 until his death in 2004.
- After the Hayeses’ deaths, co-administrators (their children) notified homeowners they would no longer maintain roads; homeowners intervened in probate and sought enforcement that the estates must continue maintenance until the Town accepted dedication.
- Probate court originally ordered estates to set aside funds, repair, and dedicate infrastructure to the Town; superior court (after de novo trial) excluded certain testimony under Vermont’s dead man statutes and denied relief; this Court reversed in Hayes I and remanded to consider excluded evidence.
- On remand, the superior court found (Jan. 2017) that the Hayeses made oral promises to maintain roads and provide municipal water/sewer service, homeowners reasonably relied on those promises, and the equitable exception to the Statute of Frauds applied; court ordered establishment of a trust to fund maintenance until dedication and acceptance by the Town and remanded to probate to determine amounts.
- The estates appealed, arguing promises were personal (not running with the land), did not include water/sewer dedication obligations, that town preconditions would require upgrades (a forced dedication/taking), and the trust would unjustly benefit homeowners/Town.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Homeowners) | Defendant's Argument (Estates) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Were the Hayeses’ oral promises to maintain roads, water, and sewer enforceable despite Statute of Frauds? | Oral promises induced purchases; homeowners relied to their detriment so equitable exception applies. | Promises concern interests in land and must be written; no enforceable oral contract. | Court: Equitable exception applies; findings supported that homeowners reasonably relied and cannot be returned to prior position. |
| 2. Do the promises to maintain roads run with the land and bind the estates? | Promises were tied to property use and intended to benefit successive owners; therefore run with the land. | Promises were personal to Richard Hayes (deed lacked covenant to heirs/assigns) and should not bind estates. | Court: Intent to run with the land may be implied; covenant sufficiently connected to land to bind estates. |
| 3. Does the obligation terminate upon offering the roads to the Town, or only upon Town acceptance? | Homeowners: obligation continues until dedication and acceptance so services remain uninterrupted. | Estates: obligation ended when roads were offered; requiring maintenance until acceptance exceeds promise and lacks a reasonable termination. | Court: Transfer requires both dedication and acceptance; obligation continues until Town accepts dedication. |
| 4. Must estates fund upgrades required by Town preconditions (forced dedication/taking concern)? | Homeowners: trusts/maintenance enforce the original bargain so costs for maintaining service are proper. | Estates: Town’s preconditions would force estates to pay for expensive upgrades beyond what was promised; this is a forced dedication/uncompensated taking. | Court: Order only requires estates to maintain infrastructure until dedication/acceptance; estates may instead retain ownership and maintain indefinitely; Town conditions are not adjudicated here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes v. Town of Manchester Water & Sewer Boards, 198 Vt. 92, 112 A.3d 742 (Vt. 2014) (remand for consideration of excluded testimony under dead man statute)
- In re Estate of Gorton, 167 Vt. 357, 706 A.2d 947 (Vt. 1997) (equitable exception to Statute of Frauds; enforcement when promisee reasonably relied to detriment)
- Rogers v. Watson, 156 Vt. 483, 594 A.2d 409 (Vt. 1991) (requirements for covenant to run with the land)
- Albright v. Fish, 136 Vt. 387, 394 A.2d 1117 (Vt. 1978) (intent that covenant run with land may be implied where promise is intimately connected to land)
- Demers v. City of Montpelier, 120 Vt. 380, 141 A.2d 676 (Vt. 1958) (dedication of private property to public requires both dedication by owner and acceptance by municipality)
- Field v. Costa, 184 Vt. 230, 958 A.2d 1164 (Vt. 2008) (terms may be read into agreements when necessary to effectuate parties’ intent)
- Haines v. City of New York, 364 N.E.2d 820 (N.Y. 1977) (reasonable time for municipal obligations may be until public no longer needs/use the service)