Opinion ID: 1962202
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Association-Nesti Boundary

Text: As initially stated, the northerly line of the park land property owned by the Association and the easterly portion of Nesti's south line form a common boundary. Its location is here in dispute between these parties, and was determined by the trial court to be a line 900 feet northerly of and parallel to the north side line of Pine Haven Drive, so-called. Nesti urges that the line in question should be an extension of the Herge-Nesti common boundary in an easterly direction, from a line established by conceded markers on the top of the lake bank and the northeast corner of the Herge lot. A line so extended would hit the railroad right of way some 760 feet northerly of Pine Haven Drive, rather than 900 feet, and would not be parallel to Pine Haven Drive. It would make the parcel lie entirely in Shelburne, while the line set by the court would extend the parcel into South Burlington. The claimed line is argued for on the basis that the actual deed was recited to be in compliance with earlier deed covenants to convey referring to a parcel approximately 900 feet in length, that it referred to the parcel in Shelburne, without reference to South Burlington, and that it is indicated, at least roughly, by artificial monuments controlling in the absence of natural monuments. These artificial monuments, as claimed, are the pipes in place for the Herge-Nesti line and the Shelburne-South Burlington line. Several difficulties are inherent in the Nesti argument. Recognizing the importance of natural monuments and artificial monuments, in that order, such importance does not attach to monuments not referred to in the deed. Without such reference, features have no force as a monument in the true sense; they cannot serve to dispute courses and distances set out in the instrument of conveyance. Haklits v. Oldenburg, 124 Vt. 199, 203-04, 201 A.2d 690, 693 (1964). The approximate description in the preceding covenants cannot fare any better. The line description found by the court corresponds exactly to the description contained in the deed of conveyance. The recital in that deed that it is given to comply with previous covenants does not make, by using the word approximate, those covenants controlling. When a deed contains a particular description and also a reference to a deed, the reference is regarded as a general description. When the particular and the general description do not coincide, effect must be given to the particular description. Pareira v. Wehner, supra, 133 Vt. at 77, 330 A.2d at 86; Basso v. Veysey, 118 Vt. 399, 403, 110 A.2d 706, 708-09 (1954). This is true, even conceding a discrepancy of some 140 feet to be within the term approximate, a matter of serious doubt. Moreover, in the face of a very specific deed dimension, the description of the property as located in Shelburne clearly must yield to the particular dimension. The 900 foot dimension in the deed is indeed clear and specific; the description is of a line on the north . . . parallel to and 900 feet northerly of the south line of said parcel. That south line is described as the north line of Pine Haven Drive. These descriptions must prevail, as specific in contrast to general. Basso v. Veysey, supra ; Parrow v. Proulx, 111 Vt. 274, 277, 15 A.2d 835, 836 (1940). So much of the judgment below as relates to the northerly boundary of the Association's park land property is without error, and will be affirmed.