Opinion ID: 2637983
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The easterly 150 feet of lot 39 within Sky Ranch Estates II

Text: SVA contends that the district court erred by granting the Association title to the easterly 150 feet of lot 39 within Sky Ranch Estates II, arguing that SVA is the legal owner of the property because SVA reserved title to the property in the amended CC & Rs. When a contract is clear on its face, it will be construed from the written language and enforced as written. [2] Parol evidence is not admissible to vary or contradict the clear and unambiguous terms of a written agreement. However, parol evidence is admissible to determine the true intent of the parties when a contract is ambiguous. [3] Thus, the circumstances surrounding the execution of a contract and the subsequent acts or declarations of the parties may be considered to interpret unclear contractual provisions. [4] In this case, the CC & Rs constituted a written contract to convey land, but the covenant excepting the easterly 150 feet of the designated landing strip created an ambiguity as to the identity of the designated landing strip in light of the recorded plat maps for the subdivision. These plat maps contained a designated landing strip 300 feet wide and were referenced in the CC & Rs. Thus, the district court properly considered parol evidence to resolve the ambiguity. Additionally, this court will not set aside a district court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous or not supported by substantial evidence. [5] The record reveals substantial evidence from which the district court could find that SVA intended to convey the easterly 150 feet of lot 39 to the Association. In particular, the Association presented various documents, including recorded tentative and final plat maps for Sky Ranch Estates and promotional materials, all of which depicted the entire width of lot 39 as a landing strip. Testimony from the individuals involved in the process of seeking approval of the subdivision before Clark County, including the engineer and a Clark County official, indicated that the County Commissioners conditioned approval of the final plat map upon the Association's ownership of the common area reserved for a landing strip, including the easterly 150 feet of lot 39. The purchasers of residential lots also testified that SVA orally represented to them that the easterly 150 feet of lot 39 would be used as a parallel landing strip. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not clearly erroneous.