Title: Madkour v. Zoltak

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Madkour v. Zoltak (2005-447)

2007 VT 14

[Filed 02-Mar-2007]


       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.


                                 2007 VT 14

                                No. 2005-447


  Abraham J. Madkour, Brenda Madkour,            Supreme Court
  Lester E. Moody, Virginia D. Moody, 
  Jerry D. Goff, Betty-Jean Goff,
  Ralph B. Welsh, Jr. and 
  Carol B. Welsh, as Trustees of                 On Appeal from
  the Carol B. Welsh Living Trust                Bennington Superior Court
        
           v.
                                                 October Term, 2006
  John Zoltak and Margaret Zoltak


  Karen R. Carroll, J.

  Rodney E. McPhee and Michelle A. Kenny of Kenlan, Schwiebert & Facey, P.C.,
    Rutland, for  Plaintiffs-Appellants.

  Kevin A. Rambold, Manchester Center, for Defendants-Appellees.


  PRESENT:  Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ., and 
            Eaton, D.J., Specially Assigned

        
       ¶  1.  JOHNSON, J.   Plaintiffs Madkours, Moodys, Goffs, Welshes,
  and Trustees of the Carol B. Welsh Living Trust (collectively, "neighbors")
  appeal a superior court order granting summary judgment to defendants,
  Zoltaks.  Neighbors own parcels of land in Manchester, Vermont that once
  comprised the so-called Ames Farm.  Zoltaks, who also own a parcel derived
  from the farm, seek to subdivide and develop the southern portion of their
  lands.  Neighbors brought an action for declaratory judgment in the
  Bennington Superior Court claiming that restrictive covenants burden
  Zoltaks' lands, and seeking a determination that Zoltaks are prohibited
  from developing their lands as proposed.  The court below granted summary
  judgment for Zoltaks-finding that no covenant presently burdens the lands
  proposed for development - and we now affirm.
        
       ¶  2.  The lands owned by neighbors and Zoltaks, together with various
  parcels owned by other individuals, were originally part of a tract of land
  known as the Ames Farm.  The farm, comprised of approximately ninety acres,
  was owned by Yetta Isaacs.  Isaacs acquired the land upon her husband's
  death in 1955.  Beginning in 1964, Isaacs proceeded to subdivide and convey
  the entire lands of the Ames Farm via eight separate deeds.  The last
  conveyance, to Zoltaks, occurred in 1999.

       ¶  3.  The first of the eight conveyances was by warranty deed from
  Isaacs to Jean Viebrock and Phyllis Binkley on June 27, 1964.  Deed one
  included covenants restricting use of the property to a single-family home
  for private residential purposes, and prohibiting the purchasers from
  subdividing,  selling, or leasing the property "in parts smaller than the
  whole."  In addition, deed one provided that:

    The grantor, covenants and agrees that she will not sell or convey
    any of the lands presently owned by her located in the same meadow
    as the lands herein described easterly of a line located 400 feet
    westerly from and parallel with the west line of the lands herein
    described, or located in the meadow adjoining the meadow in which
    said lands are located on the north, as presently fenced, without
    imposing thereon the same or similar restrictions and covenants as
    set forth herein, together with a provision that the said lands
    shall not be sold, leased, or subdivided into parcels of less than
    2 acres of land. 

  Plaintiffs Abraham and Brenda Madkour have since acquired the lands
  conveyed by deed one. 
   
       ¶  4.  The second and third conveyances of the Ames Farm were by
  warranty deed from Isaacs to Barbara Haviland and were both dated March 27,
  1979.  Deeds two and three contained covenants similar to those in deed
  one, restricting the use of the land to residential purposes and
  prohibiting the subdivision, sale, or lease of the land "in parts smaller
  than the whole."  In addition, deeds two and three contained a time limit
  on the restrictive covenants and a promise to impose similar covenants on
  future conveyances.  These provisions read as follows:

    The above restrictions shall expire twenty years from the date
    hereof, but may be renewed for an additional term of fifteen years
    by a two thirds vote of all land owners derived from the "Ames
    Farm". . . .

    Grantor agrees not to convey any remaining lands being a part of
    said Ames Farm, without imposing the same or similar restrictions.  

       ¶  5.  The fourth conveyance of land derived from the Ames Farm was by
  warranty deed from Isaacs to Richard J. Kittredge and Clarence J. Haviland
  on July 20, 1979.  Deed four contained restrictions almost identical to
  those in deeds two and three, including (verbatim) the 20-year time limit
  and reciprocal covenant transcribed above. 

       ¶  6.  The fifth conveyance was by warranty deed from Isaacs to Green
  Mountain Mercantile, a commercial enterprise.  Deed five was devoid of
  residential-use restrictions and included an express disclaimer to that
  effect:

    The herein conveyed premises are not subject to covenants included
    in deeds of conveyance to other purchasers of parcels of the
    so-called "Ames Farm" property.  The herein conveyed parcel is
    zoned for industrial use, and is not subject to any such
    residential covenants.  

       ¶  7.  The sixth conveyance, on July 2, 1991, was by warranty deed
  from Isaacs to plaintiffs Abraham and Brenda Madkour and contained
  ninety-nine-year restrictive covenants proscribing the building of any
  structures upon the deeded land other than outbuildings to be used in
  connection with Abraham and Brenda Madkours' residence located in the lands
  conveyed by deed one.  Furthermore, the deed purported to merge the lands
  of deed six with those of deed one and restricted the subdivision of the
  newly formed parcel "in portions smaller than the whole."  

       ¶  8.  The seventh deed was conveyed by guardian's deed to Manchester
  Health Services, Inc., another commercial enterprise.  Deed seven contained
  no covenants.  
   
       ¶  9.  The eighth-and final-conveyance of the lands derived from the
  Ames Farm was by executor's deed to Zoltaks on July 13, 1999.  Unlike the
  other five deeds to  non-commercial purchasers, deed eight did not include
  any explicit restrictions but stated that: "[t]his conveyance is made
  subject to all covenants, easements, utility easements and restrictions of
  record." 

       ¶  10.  In August 2003, Zoltaks submitted a major development
  application to the Manchester Zoning Board requesting a permit to subdivide
  the southern portion of their lands conveyed by deed eight to construct a
  twelve-lot planned residential development, potentially including duplexes
  and commercial properties.  On March 17, 2004, neighbors filed a complaint
  in the superior court, together with a motion for preliminary injunction,
  seeking a declaration that Zoltaks' property is burdened by restrictive
  covenants, and further seeking an injunction to prevent Zoltaks from
  subdividing and developing the property in violation of the restrictive
  covenant.  The court denied neighbors' motion for preliminary injunction
  because Zoltaks' Act 250 permit was on appeal; the permit decision was
  later affirmed. 
   
       ¶  11.  Zoltaks moved for summary judgment in November 2004 and
  neighbors filed their opposition and a cross-motion for summary judgment
  the following month.  On August 3, 2005, the superior court granted summary
  judgment to Zoltaks and denied neighbors' motion for summary judgment,
  finding that Zoltaks' property was not subject to any restrictive covenants
  that would prevent them from developing their land as proposed.  Neighbors
  now appeal the grant of summary judgment to Zoltaks, basing their appeal on
  three arguments: (1) the lands burdened in perpetuity in deed one include
  the lands currently owned by Zoltaks; (2) the twenty-year equitable
  servitude found in deeds two through four burdens Zoltaks' lands until
  January 13, 2019; and (3) equity requires that the restrictive covenants be
  enforced against Zoltaks.  Our interpretation of the deed language and
  consideration of facts presented by neighbors leads us to conclude that
  summary judgment for Zoltaks was proper.  Thus, we affirm.

       ¶  12.  Our review of a summary judgment decision is de novo.  Mellin
  v. Flood Brook Union Sch. Dist., 173 Vt. 202, 211,