Kings Harbor Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Goldman
253 N.C. App. 726
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Kings Harbor subdivision developer recorded a plat (2005) showing a 10-foot pedestrian walkway easement across Lot 37 ending at the lot boundary; the Declaration referenced the walkway but said nothing about a pier.
- The Developer later built a community pier extending into Kings Creek, obtained a CAMA permit describing it as a "community access facility," and the pier was used by lot owners for years.
- Developer conveyed Lot 37 to Willa Mae Hartley in March 2011 by general warranty deed that was subject only to the recorded restrictive covenants and plat; the plat did not show the pier or any extension into the creek.
- Hartley later died; the Goldmans inherited Lots 37 and 38 and began asserting exclusive ownership of the pier in 2014 (chains and a locked gate), prompting the HOA to sue for declaratory relief, trespass, and injunctive relief.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the HOA, declaring the pier common property and enjoining the Goldmans; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the Developer had conveyed full title (including riparian rights and the pier) to Hartley in 2011 and therefore could not convey the pier to the HOA in 2014.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the HOA owns the community pier or the lot owner (Goldman) holds exclusive ownership | HOA: plat, Declaration, CAMA permit, and longstanding community use show Developer intended pier and riparian access for lot owners and HOA ownership/benefit | Goldmans: Developer conveyed Lot 37 (and riparian rights) to Hartley in 2011; deed contained no reservation of riparian rights or pier, so pier passed to Hartley and then to Goldmans | Held for Goldmans. Deed conveyed fee simple (including riparian rights and pier) subject only to the 10-foot walkway easement that ends at the lot boundary; Developer had no interest to convey the pier to HOA in 2014. |
| Whether the trial court properly considered portions of HOA affidavits on summary judgment | HOA: affidavits supported its motion and showed intended use and community ownership | Goldmans: challenged consideration of certain affidavit portions | Court did not need to resolve remaining affidavit dispute after concluding deed language was controlling; primary dispositive ruling was that title passed to Hartley and thus to Goldmans |
Key Cases Cited
- Pine Knoll Ass'n v. Cardon, 126 N.C. App. 155 (discusses nature of riparian rights and appurtenant privileges)
- Bond v. Wool, 107 N.C. 139 (riparian owner’s right to construct wharfs, piers, or landings)
- Stines v. Willying, Inc., 81 N.C. App. 98 (a plat referred to in a deed becomes part of the deed)
- Vestal v. Vestal, 49 N.C. App. 263 (law favors creation of fee simple estate absent clear intent for lesser estate)
- Swaim v. Simpson, 120 N.C. App. 863 (scope of an express easement is controlled by the conveyance terms)
- Lovette v. Stone, 239 N.C. 206 (a grantor cannot convey an estate greater than the one he possesses)