Title: Main Street Landing, LLC v. Lake Street Assoc., Inc.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Main Street Landing, LLC v. Lake Street Association, Inc. (2004-485); 179 Vt. 583; 
892 A.2d 931

2006 VT 13

[Filed 08-Jan-2006]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2006 VT 13

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-485

                             OCTOBER TERM, 2005


  Main Street Landing, LLC	         }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                           }	Chittenden Superior Court
                                       }	
  Lake Street Association, Inc.	   }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. S0494-04 CnC

                                          Trial Judge: Matthew I. Katz

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  In this dispute involving the construction of a deed,
  plaintiff Main Street Landing, LLC appeals the superior court's ruling that
  the availability of parking spaces in plaintiff's garage located
  approximately 1200 feet from defendant Lake Street Association, Inc.'s
  office building did not allow plaintiff to terminate its obligation to
  provide defendant sixty-five parking spaces within 300 feet of defendant's
  building.  We affirm.


       ¶  2.  In late 1985, Lake Street Association's predecessor-in-title,
  McKenzie Associates, negotiated with Alden Waterfront Corporation, which
  later became Main Street Landing, for the purchase of two historic brick
  mill buildings located near Lake Champlain in the City of Burlington.  The
  buildings were subdivided from a much larger parcel owned by Alden, which
  had extensive plans to develop and reinvigorate portions of the Burlington
  waterfront.  Part of the property that was later sold to Lake Street
  Association and is the subject of this dispute - the McKenzie building -
  had no room for parking.  Hence, the parties' purchase-and-sale agreement
  obligated the seller, Alden, to provide parking on its adjacent property -
  not only to satisfy the practical needs of the building's tenants but also
  to meet Burlington's zoning requirements.
        
       ¶  3.  To obtain a zoning permit, the parties to the transaction had
  to amend their agreement to include the number of parking spaces then
  required by the city for the building.  City zoning regulations further
  required that parking spaces be located within 400 feet of the subject
  property.  On December 9, 1985, the city issued a zoning permit conditioned
  upon parking being provided in perpetuity as set forth in the parties'
  agreement.  The parties' agreement required the seller to provide
  sixty-five parking spaces to meet the zoning requirements, giving the
  seller the right to relocate the spaces within 300 feet of the building. 
  The agreement further provided that "[a]ll such parking spaces shall be
  provided without charge until such time as parking facilities are
  constructed in connection with the general development of the waterfront
  area by Seller within 300 feet of the premises."  The last clause of the
  quoted sentence was one of several handwritten additions to the agreement.

       ¶  4.  On December 10, 1985, the day after the city issued the
  zoning permit, a bond issue essential to Alden's expansive waterfront
  development plan failed to win public approval.  The sale of the McKenzie
  building went forward, however, on December 16, 1985.  The deed to the
  property contained the following relevant language concerning parking:

      There is included in this conveyance the license and right to use
    the number of parking spaces required by the City of Burlington
    Planning Commission . . . but not to exceed 65 spaces under any
    circumstances, which right shall be appurtenant to the above
    described Premises, without cost to the Grantee unless or until
    the provisions set forth in subparagraph 2 occur, and shall be
    subject to the following rights which are reserved to the Grantor:

    1.  Grantor shall have the right to designate the location of
        alternative parking spaces to those initially designated in this
        deed at any point within 300 feet of any boundary of the Premises;

    2.  Grantor shall have the right to require Grantee to relinquish
        the parking spaces provided pursuant to this paragraph when a
        multi-story parking structure is constructed by Grantor or its
        successors for occupants of the waterfront area and/or the public
        in connection with the general development of the waterfront area,
        at which time the Grantee shall have the option to rent the same
        number of parking spaces as are provided under this paragraph in
        the parking structure described herein at the then-prevailing
        rental rate.
 
       ¶  5.  In the early 1990's, McKenzie Associates sold the McKenzie
  building to Lake Street Association's predecessor-in-title.  Meanwhile,
  Alden changed its name to Main Street Landing Company and continued its
  waterfront development on a smaller scale after the defeat of the bond
  issue.  In the mid-1990's, Main Street developed the Union Station area and
  built a small parking garage dedicated to that site.  From 1985 until 2003,
  Alden, and later Main Street, provided parking spaces pursuant to the deed
  within 300 feet of the McKenzie building.  In the summer of 2003, upon
  commencing a construction project adjacent to the McKenzie building, Main
  Street fenced off most of the parking area used by tenants of the building. 
  A dispute ensued as to parking arrangements, and Lake Street Association
  sought injunctive relief.  The action was resolved by a court order that
  recognized the parking rights in the deed and accepted a temporary plan
  that the parties had worked out to satisfy those requirements.  The
  temporary parking provided by the plan was all within 300 feet of the
  building.  When the parties were unable to work out a permanent plan, Main
  Street filed the instant action, seeking a permanent declaration regarding
  the parties' rights and obligations concerning parking.

       ¶  6.  In the declaratory judgment action, Main Street claimed that
  the availability of parking spaces in the Union Station garage met the
  condition contained in subparagraph two of the deed's parking provision
  quoted above, thereby terminating Lake Street Association's right to
  sixty-five parking spaces within 300 feet of the McKenzie building.  For
  its part, Lake Street Association argued that construction of the Union
  Street Station garage did not terminate its right to sixty-five parking
  spaces within 300 feet of the McKenzie building because the garage was
  located more than 1200 feet from the building and thus did not satisfy the
  deed's requirement that the parking spaces be located within 300 feet of
  the building.  The superior court ruled in favor of Lake Street
  Association.  After examining the circumstances surrounding the sale of the
  McKenzie building and finding ambiguity in the relevant deed provision, the
  court concluded that the parties intended the deed to guarantee the
  sixty-five parking spaces unless a structure was built that provided
  parking within 300 feet of the building.  On appeal, Main Street argues
  that the trial court erred: (1) in concluding that the deed is ambiguous
  regarding the parties' parking rights; (2) in resorting to extrinsic
  evidence to read into the deed a provision that the parties had deleted in
  an earlier deed draft; and (3) in rejecting the parties' demonstrated
  intent on the basis that it was illogical.

       ¶  7.  When construing a deed or other written agreement, the
  "master rule " is that the intent of the parties governs.  Kipp v. Chips
  Estate, 169 Vt. 102, 105,