Opinion ID: 3033991
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 1987 GHOA Pier Deed

Text: The GHOA pier was transferred to GHOA by Glenbrook Properties via a deed executed in 1987. Referring to this transfer, the court below stated, “[i]t is . . . undisputed that Glenbrook Properties conveyed the existing [GHOA] pier to GHOA by deed reserving the right to use the pier as follows: ‘RESERVING, HOWEVER, unto grantors, their successors and assigns, the right to use said property in common with others entitled to use the same.’ ” (Report at 26.) In analyzing the right of use that Glenbrook Properties retained upon the transfer of the pier to GHOA, the court noted: 13570 GLENBROOK HOMEOWNERS v. TAHOE REGIONAL The parties mischaracterize the status of the [GHOA] pier in discussing whether it is subject to an easement or a license. In the deed, Glenbrook Properties conveyed the community pier to GHOA and an easement [over Glenbrook Properties’ real property] to maintain the pier. It did not convey title to the real property underlying the pier. (Id. at 27.) Accordingly, the court held, “Although the pier is affixed to land, the conveyance severed the pier from any realty and the pier became the personal property of GHOA.” (Id. (citing Bohle v. Thompson, 554 A.2d 818, 823 (Md. App. 1989) for the proposition that an owner of both the realty and fixtures upon the realty may effect severance of the fixtures as personalty in a sales agreement)). Neither Ruvo/Fein nor the Glenbrook Parties appeal this holding. On the basis of the holding that the GHOA pier is personal property, the court below held, “[n]ecessarily, because the reserved right to use the pier was not an interest in land, nor a privilege to use land, the reserved right does not derive from an easement or license. Rather, the right is purely contractual.” (Report at 27.) Again, neither party appeals this holding. The court below concluded its analysis by stating, “[i]n determining what contractual rights were reserved, ‘[t]he preeminent rule of construction is to ascertain the intention of the contracting parties,’ ” and further reasoned, “the language in the [1987 Pier] deed reserving the right for ‘grantors, their successors and assigns’ to use the pier is clear and unambiguous on its face.” (Id. at 27-28. (quoting Great Am. Airways, Inc. v. Airport Auth. of Washoe County, 743 P.2d 628, 629 (Nev. 1987)). On the basis of these principles, the court concluded that “the Fein parcels where the [Ruvo/Fein] pier is to be located acquired access to the [GHOA] pier as Glenbrook Properties’ successor in interest.” (Report at 28.) Ruvo/Fein first argues that this conclusion is erroneous because Glenbrook Properties never assigned to Fein its GLENBROOK HOMEOWNERS v. TAHOE REGIONAL 13571 “purely contractual” interest in access to the pier. Second, Ruvo/Fein points out that because Glenbrook Properties’ right was purely contractual, even if it did assign the right, it would only benefit Fein, not the Fein parcels (the relevant inquiry under Condition O), and would not run with the land. Ruvo/ Fein’s assignments of error are accurate. [6] It is well-settled that personal contracts do not run with the land. See, e.g., CLS Mortgage, Inc. v. Bruno, 937 P.2d 1106, 1109 (Wash. App. Div. 1997); Davis v. Oregon Mut. Ins. Co., 429 P.2d 886, 887 (Wash. 1967); Pelser v. Gingold, 8 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Minn. 1943). Thus, although the deeds by which Fein purchased the parcels at issue in Condition O conveyed the parcels “TOGETHER with all tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances, including easements if any, thereto belonging or appertaining, and any reservations, remainders, rents, issues or profits thereof,” because the reserved right to use the pier was “purely contractual,” the reserved right clearly was not conveyed as a “tenement[ ], hereditament[ ], [or] appurtenance[ ]” belonging to the Fein parcels. In sum, because the 1987 Pier Deed created a purely contractual right between Glenbrook Properties and GHOA, the conveyance to Fein of real property together with the appurtenances thereto simply could not have effected an assignment of Glenbrook Properties’ separate contractual rights. Accordingly, the Fein parcels do not have a right to use the GHOA community pier.