Opinion ID: 420908
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Interpretation of Agreement

Text: 38 Finally Rockland asserts that the parties could not have contemplated the taking of an entire fee simple interest because the Kohl property was encumbered by several outstanding easements. Hence, according to Rockland, the Court should interpret the parties' use of the term acquire title as a reflection of their intent to condemn an easement as opposed to a fee interest. 39 This argument is frivolous. As with any settlement agreement or contract, we look first at the plain language of the agreement. Sanchez v. Maher, 560 F.2d 1105, 1108 (2d Cir.1977). The agreement, as incorporated in the district court order, provides that Rockland will acquire title to the subject property. See J.App. at 29. When no limiting language is included in the conveyance document, title is understood to mean a fee interest, not an easement. 2 G. Thompson, Law of Real Property Sec. 319 (1980); see generally Hallock v. New York, 32 N.Y.2d at 605, 347 N.Y.S.2d at 64, 300 N.E.2d at 432 (We note in particular that the statute, under which the State would carry out the Authority's determination as to what real property is reasonably necessary for the project, explicitly authorized the acquisition of 'interests in such property less than full title, such as easements.' ) (citing Highway Law, Sec. 30, subd. 2) (emphasis added). When a prospective purchaser seeks to acquire an easement, New York courts require that party to identify with specificity the location and intended use for the estate. See Clark v. Devoe, 124 N.Y. 120, 125-26, 26 N.E. 275, 276 (1891); see also Raymond v. New York, 208 Misc. 43, 46, 143 N.Y.S.2d 354, 358 (Ct.Cl.1955), rev'd on other grounds, 4 A.D.2d 62, 162 N.Y.S.2d 838 (4th Dep't 1957), aff'd, 4 N.Y.2d 961, 175 N.Y.S.2d 829, 151 N.E.2d 624 (1958). 40 Here, Rockland never identified in the settlement agreement the type of estate that it expected to take from Kohl except to note that it would acquire title. Because, in the absence of limiting language, title is commonly understood to mean a fee interest, Rockland cannot now be heard to complain when it failed to specify its intent to condemn a lesser estate. Moreover, Rockland's conduct during the settlement negotiations belies its assertion that at the time the agreement was executed it intended only to condemn an easement in the Kohl property. See Raymond v. New York, 208 Misc. at 46-47, 143 N.Y.S.2d at 358 (where there is uncertainty in the description of the property to be taken by eminent domain, the court will look at the circumstances existing when the proceedings commenced, the subject matter of the documents involved, and the intention should be determined from the various instruments in connection with acts of parties.). On January 25, 1980, in one of the early communications leading to the settlement, counsel for Rockland informed Kohl that it will acquire in fee [the Kohl parcel]. See J.App. at 111. While the negotiations were in progress, the County legislature authorized Rockland to acquire title. See J.App. at 107-09. Finally, and most persuasive, Rockland's special counsel advised the County attorney in a letter dated July 16, 1981, that: As we discussed on the telephone, I would like the County to consider taking a step which I believe could result in a potential substantial saving. I would like the County to consider changing the nature of the taking from fee to permanent easement. See J.App. at 133 (emphasis added). This letter, written after the settlement agreement was executed in May 1981, completely discredits Rockland's position here. 41 The record reveals that at the time the agreement was executed, the County fully intended to acquire Kohl's entire legal interest in the disputed acreage. After agreeing to take this property interest by eminent domain, the County apparently decided that it could accomplish its public purpose more economically by condemning only an easement. But Rockland had previously entered into a valid settlement agreement and it is bound by the terms of that agreement. 42 Affirmed.