Case Title: Alpenwald Village, Inc. v. Town of Readsboro

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1996-11-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
Alpenwald Village, Inc. v. Town of Readsboro  (96-045); 166 Vt. 28; 
687 A.2d 481

[Filed 15-Nov-1996]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 No. 96-045

Alpenwald Village, Inc.                           Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            Bennington Superior Court

Town of Readsboro                                 September Term, 1996

Robert Grussing III, J.

       Lon T. McClintock of Jacobs, McClintock & Scanlon, Bennington, for
  plaintiff-appellee

       Robert E. Woolmington of Witten, Saltonstall, Woolmington, Bongartz &
  Campbell, P.C., Bennington, for defendant-appellant

PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

       JOHNSON, J.   This case centers on several lots in a residential
  condominium development that are owned by defendant Town of Readsboro. 
  After taking title to the properties at its own tax sale, the Town failed
  to pay the annual fees assessed on the properties by plaintiff Alpenwald
  Village, Inc. (AVI), the corporation that manages the condominium
  development.  AVI brought this action to collect the past-due fees, plus
  interest, costs and attorney's fees.  The Town moved for summary judgment,
  arguing that AVI could collect past-due assessments under the homeowner
  covenants only by foreclosing its liens on the properties. The trial court
  denied the motion for summary judgment, but granted the Town's request for
  permission for interlocutory appeal on the following certified question:

       Assuming that the Declaration of Protective Property Rights
       creates a common scheme for a subdivision and runs with the land,
       does the purchaser of an Alpenwald lot at a tax sale, who accepts
       a tax-collector's deed, become personally liable for payment of any
       valid lot assessments thereafter levied, or is the enforcing agent's
       remedy for failure to pay such assessments limited to an action of
       foreclosure?

  We conclude that the purchaser of an Alpenwald lot at a tax sale who
  accepts a tax-collector's deed does become personally liable for payment of
  any valid lot assessments thereafter levied.

       The Alpenwald Development is a planned residential subdivision located
  in the Towns of Stamford and Readsboro.  Each owner of an Alpenwald lot is
  a member of AVI and is subject to covenants (entitled "Declaration of
  Protective Property Rights") that include a provision requiring owners to
  pay annual assessments to AVI to cover the costs of maintaining the common
  lands, roadways and facilities.  Since taking possession of the lots, the
  Town has never paid the annual fees assessed by AVI.  For purposes of this
  appeal, the parties do not contest the validity of the annual assessments,
  but dispute only whether the covenants permit AVI to bring this action
  against the Town.

       Central to the appeal are paragraphs 7 and 8 of the covenants, which
  state in relevant part:

         (7) CHARGES: In order to maintain and improve the
         ALPENWALD DEVELOPMENT . . . the owner of each Lot
         shall, on the first day of May in each year . . . pay to the
         REVERSIONARY OWNER, or its successors and assigns . . . the
         annual payment in the amount hereinafter recited.  Such annual
         payment shall be a lien on each Lot, and if not paid by June 15th
         of each calendar year, the REVERSIONARY OWNER, or its
         successors and assigns, may enforce said lien, as hereinafter
         provided, as and when the REVERSIONARY OWNER shall elect
         . . . .

         (8) REVERSIONARY OWNER:
           . . . .
         [I]n the event of a breach of any of the covenants, conditions,
         reservations, or restrictions hereby established, the
         REVERSIONARY OWNER shall have the right to enforce or
         remedy such breach or enforce such lien as hereinbefore provided
         by appropriate legal proceedings.  As to each Lot owner in such
         premises these covenants, conditions, reservations, and restrictions
         shall be covenants running with the land . . . .

  The Town argues that paragraphs 7 and 8 at most imply a personal right of
  action, but that such restrictions cannot be extended by implication to
  include options not clearly expressed, relying on Fassler v. Okemo
  Mountain, Inc., 148 Vt. 538, 542,