Opinion ID: 2279565
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Intent of the Parties

Text: The Sagalyns argue that the parties could not have intended to prohibit the mere obtaining of a single record lot in place of a single assessment taxation lot. The intention of the parties to the Easement, they contend, was to protect the integrity of the exterior and open spaces of the property. They argue that if the parties had intended to prohibit the renumbering of the record lots into one single record lot, the Easement would have included such a restriction specifically. They contend that the plain ordinary meaning of the term subdivided conveyed the parties' purpose, i.e., that the property would not be changed in dimension or boundary. This argument essentially restates the argument concerning the meaning of the term subdivide previously addressed. With certain limited exceptions, not present here, `[t]he written language embodying the terms of an agreement will govern the rights and liabilities of the parties, irrespective of the intent of the parties at the time they entered into the [agreement].' Minmar, supra, 246 A.2d at 786 (quoting Slice, supra, 137 A.2d at 693). The Sagalyns contend that the shift from an assessment and taxation lot to a record lot without any change in dimensions of the property furnishes no additional rights in general nor does it convey or imply any additional rights under the Easement. As the trial court observed, however, whether the boundaries of the property were changed is not determinative of the issue. What is at issue here is whether the Sagalyns violated the Easement by obtaining a single record lot. However, as the Foundation points out, the shift from an assessment and taxation lot number to a record lot number, does alter the rights of the parties in that the record lot designation permits the Sagalyns to obtain a building permit, thereby placing them in a position to violate the restrictions in the Easement. [12]