Opinion ID: 778089
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Stillmans

Text: 82 The Stillmans received their Parcel 10A directly from John and Vernon Harthman, two original Harthman heirs. The conveyance was memorialized pursuant to a Warranty Deed dated August 26, 1992. 83 Despite its reference to the two maps which show a 50' easement across the Parcel 10A property, an examination of this deed clearly demonstrates that the intent of the parties was to subject the parcel with the same easement as established by the Harthman decision in 1975. With regard to easements and encumbrances burdening the property, the deed is very particular and specific, stating: 84 SUBJECT, HOWEVER, to Virgin Islands zoning regulations and to the covenants, restrictions, easements and agreements of record, including the terms, conditions, restrictions and obligations of the Memorandum Opinion and Partition Decree dated August 21, 1975 in District Court Civil No. 414-1970, recorded with the Recorder of Deeds 85 .... 86 It is clear that the parties intended that Parcel 10A be subject to the same easement established by Judge Young in the 1975 Harthman decision. Since, as previously discussed ( see Section V.A., supra ), the Harthman decision established a berm line easement, the Stillmans' property should similarly be burdened with only a berm line easement. 9 87 Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court's August 2001 ruling which vacated its earlier July 1999 order. That 1999 order had ruled that the Stillman's property (Parcel 10A) was subject to a 50' easement. The August 2001 ruling properly subjected the Stillman's Parcel (Parcel 10A) to a berm line easement only.