Opinion ID: 3033991
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Condition N

Text: Condition N requires Ruvo/Fein to “obtain a decision from an appropriate court that [the Ruvo/Fein Pier] will not unreasonably interfere with any recreational/access rights GHOA holds in the project area.” Through a series of deeds recorded in 1977, GHOA and its members received an easement over, inter alia, the beach property Fein would later come to own. In the relevant deed, Fein’s predecessor in interest “covenant[ed] and agree[d] that [the beach area] shall not be developed for other than recreational uses as defined by Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.” The deed further granted GHOA’s predecessor in interest the right to use, inter alia, the beach area “for those permitted uses designated in Section 7.32 (1) through (6) inclusive, of Ordinance No. 19 adopted by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency . . . [and] in accordance with reasonable rules and regulations relating to such use.” On the basis of this express language, the court below found that although GHOA has a recreational easement upon the beach, that easement is subject to the limitations set forth in the deed which “expressly allow for development of recreational uses by owners of the property subject to the easement 13566 GLENBROOK HOMEOWNERS v. TAHOE REGIONAL [i.e., Fein].” (Report at 21.) The court then determined, by reference to TRPA rules, that the Ruvo/Fein Pier is a “recreational use as defined by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.” (Id. at 23-24.) We review the interpretation of deeds and contracts de novo. See In re Emery, 317 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir. 2003). [3] On appeal the Glenbrook Parties do not attack the fundamental premise that GHOA’s easement is subject to the property owner’s reserved right to develop the beach area for recreational uses. Rather, the Glenbrook Parties cite authority establishing the proposition that the owner of a servient estate may not erect any structure that encroaches on a right-of-way. This argument misses the point. Because GHOA’s easement is limited by the express reservation of the property owner’s right to develop the property for recreational uses, any such development cannot infringe on GHOA’s easement. The easement has been so limited since its creation. As the court below held: Even assuming that GHOA has a right-of-way, a right-of-way is only an easement and “must be con- strued strictly in accordance with its terms in an effort to give effect to the intentions of the parties.” S.O.C., [Inc. v. Mirage Hotel-Casino], 23 P.3d [243], 247 [(Nev. 2001)]; see also Cox v. Glenbrook Co., 371 P.2d 647, 652 (the general rule is that “the extent of an easement created by conveyance is fixed by the conveyance.”) Given the express language of the deeds which grant [Fein] the right to develop [his] property for recreational uses as defined by the TRPA, GHOA’s argument in this regard must fail. (Report at 23.) [4] The Glenbrook Parties alternatively argue that Nevada’s Planned Unit Development Statute, Nev. Rev. Stat. Ch. 278A, GLENBROOK HOMEOWNERS v. TAHOE REGIONAL 13567 also precludes construction of the Pier. However, as the court below noted, the plain language of the statute and relevant cases establish that GHOA may enforce only Planned Unit Development provisions that are contained in documents recorded in the county recorder’s registry of real estate titles. Ruvo/Fein asserts that the only recorded documents that govern GHOA’s rights to maintain open space easements on Fein’s beach are the deeds which created the recreational easement in favor of GHOA. The Glenbrook Parties have not cited any recorded document contradicting this assertion. Thus, the Glenbrook Parties’ argument is without merit. GHOA’s rights to enforce the plan are entirely derivative of its rights under the easement— because the easement does not prohibit construction of the Pier, neither does the Planned Unit Development statute. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment below as to Condition N.