Case Title: In re Estate of Harding

Citation: 178 Vt. 139, 2005 VT 24, 878 A.2d 201

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2005-02-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Estate of Harding (2003-156); 178 Vt. 139; 878 A.2d 201

2005 VT 24

[Filed 18-Feb-2005]

       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.

                                 2005 VT 24

                                No. 2003-156

  In re Estate of Caleb Harding	                 Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
                                                 Chittenden Superior Court

                                                 October Term, 2004

  Matthew I. Katz, J.

  Francis J. Thornton, Charlotte, and Joseph F. Obuchowski, Burlington, for
    Plaintiff-Appellant.

  Robin Ober Cooley of Pierson Wadhams Quinn Yates & Coffrin, Burlington, for 
    Defendants-Appellees.

  PRESENT:  Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Reiber, JJ., and 
            Allen, C.J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

        
       ¶  1.  JOHNSON, J.  This dispute involves the interpretation of deed
  language "[e]xcepting and reserving" a family burial plot from a land
  conveyance in 1837.  Plaintiff is the original grantor's oldest living heir
  and is related, across the generations, to the person buried at the
  gravesite.  Defendants own property that completely surrounds the disputed
  gravesite, and their chain of title includes the deed language referencing
  the burial plot.  The Chittenden Probate Court concluded that a deed with
  language pertaining to a family burial plot does not retain a grantor's fee
  interest in the plot when there is (1) no description of its size or its
  metes and bounds and (2) no indication that the original grantor or his
  heirs ever recorded a separate deed for the burial plot.  The probate court
  ultimately concluded that the language created an easement in the grantor's
  heirs for access to, and maintenance of, the grave.  Plaintiff appeals.  We
  affirm.

       ¶  2.  The probate court found the following facts that are not
  appealed by plaintiff.  The Reverend Doran B. Harding, son of Caleb Harding
  and plaintiff's great-great-granduncle, died and was buried on Caleb
  Harding's farm in Charlotte.  The following year, Caleb Harding sold his
  114-acre farm to Williams Barton.  The deed for this transaction contained
  the following provision whose  meaning is disputed here: "Excepting and
  reserving therefrom the yard or enclosure on said land where Doran B.
  Harding was interred."  The deed did not describe the burial plot's size or
  its boundaries.  Other than the headstone, there is no delineation of the
  gravesite.  There is no record of a separate deed for the gravesite or of
  any attempt to transfer it as a separate piece of property.

       ¶  3.  Defendants Jeffrey and Linda Hanson purchased adjoining
  two-acre parcels of the original Harding farm from the Willard family. 
  Reverend Harding's headstone is located entirely within the boundaries of
  one of their parcels.  After purchasing the property, defendants became
  concerned that the burial plot's presence could affect future resale value. 
  They took preliminary steps to have the reverend's remains removed to a
  local cemetery.  Pursuant to 18 V.S.A. § 5212, the funeral director that
  defendants had enlisted to coordinate the disinterment applied for a permit
  to relocate the reverend's resting place.  The notice of the application
  that appeared in the local newspaper caught the eye of Reverend and Caleb
  Harding's relatives and heirs.  
   
       ¶  4.  Distraught over the potential disruption of Reverend
  Harding's eternal rest, plaintiff contacted defendants to assert her
  interest in the remains.  After negotiations over disinterment broke down,
  plaintiff filed this suit under 18 V.S.A. § 5531(c) seeking, among other
  things, a declaration that Caleb Harding's heirs owned the burial plot in
  fee simple by virtue of the terms of the Harding-to-Barton deed that is
  part of defendants' title chain. (FN1)  As Caleb Harding's oldest living
  relative, plaintiff brought the action on behalf of Caleb Harding's estate
  for the benefit of all his heirs.

       ¶  5.  In the absence of Vermont precedent on this exact issue, the
  probate court looked to decisions in other jurisdictions governing
  conveyances of land with family burial plots located on them.  The probate
  court concluded, and the superior court agreed, that such a transaction
  gives rise to an easement benefitting the grantor and his heirs unless a
  contrary intention and circumstances consistent with the creation of a new
  fee interest in the burial plot are shown.  The court concluded that
  defendants own the burial plot in fee simple subject to an easement held by
  plaintiff and Caleb Harding's other heirs.  The easement entitles the heirs
  to ingress and egress upon defendants' property for the purpose of visiting
  and maintaining the gravesite.   

       ¶  6.  Plaintiff appeals the probate and superior courts' orders,
  claiming that they erred in interpreting the deed language and concluding
  that plaintiff did not have a fee interest in the burial site.  On appeal,
  our review of the courts' conclusions of law is plenary and nondeferential. 
  N.A.S. Holdings, Inc. v. Pafundi, 169 Vt. 437, 438-39,