Opinion ID: 3033991
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 1976 Deed

Text: The court below held that in a 1976 deed (“1976 Deed”) “Glenbrook Company conveyed to Glenbrook Properties, which included the Fein parcels, the right to use designated recreational Areas in Glenbrook for recreational purposes.” (Report at 26.) Ruvo/Fein argues this holding is erroneous because the 1976 Deed is void and, in any event, the Fein property was not conveyed in the deed. Ruvo/Fein is correct on both points. [5] Under the doctrine of merger, when a single owner “acquires present possessory fee simple title to both the servient GLENBROOK HOMEOWNERS v. TAHOE REGIONAL 13569 and dominant tenements [of an easement], the easement merges into the fee . . . and is terminated.” Breliant v. Preferred Equities Corp., 858 P.2d 1258, 1261 (Nev. 1993). The 1976 Deed on which the court below relied created an easement, in favor of the dominant tenement described in Exhibit A, upon the servient tenement described in Exhibit C (the recreational areas owned by Glenbrook Company). However, in a March 1977 Deed, Glenbrook Properties reconveyed Exhibit A to Glenbrook Company who still owned the property in Exhibit C. Through the March 1977 Deed, Glenbrook Company “acquire[d] present possessory fee simple title to both the servient and dominant tenements” and the easement “merge[d] into the fee . . . and [was] terminated.” Id. Thus, the holding that the easement created a right appurtenant to Fein’s parcels was erroneous. Moreover, as is clear from the surveys in the record, the Fein parcels are not part of Exhibit A dominant tenement, but rather are part of the servient tenement described in Exhibit C. Even if the easement in the 1976 Deed had not been extinguished by merger, it still would not create any rights appurtenant to the Fein parcels to use the GHOA pier.