Opinion ID: 2976648
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Negotiation of the Rice and Sullivan Deeds

Text: Sullivan testified that when he sold his tract to the government, he intended for the Sullivan Deed to recognize the easements held by Rice and Rorie over the property. At the closing of the purchase agreement, Sullivan asked his attorneys, “Do we need to put in this existing easement or any further of it?” J.A. at 233 (Sullivan Dep. at 32). Sullivan testified that his attorneys replied that the language in the Sullivan Deed regarding “existing easements for roads” recognized the Rice and Rorie easements. Id. Sullivan reiterated: “I don’t want to hurt my neighbors, Rice and Rorie.” Id. His attorneys replied: “No, we’re aware that Rice and Rorie have a way to get into this property, and this is part of it [the Rice Deed].” Id. Before the delivery of the Rice Deed from Rice to the United States, the Rice family’s attorney and the Fish and Wildlife Service exchanged letters. The Rice family attorney, Barrett Ashley, wrote a letter dated January 11, 1993 to Roseann Christ, Senior Realty Specialist, Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Department of the Interior. The letter stated: At that time [summer 1992], we discussed the Rice family’s concern that the access road to the Rorie tract remain an easement or reservation as to the title. You agreed that would be done. Accordingly, we have construed Paragraph 2 of the Sales Agreement, which refers to easements or reservations, to include that particular access road in the reference in that language to ‘roads’. . . . Upon this understanding, Mr. Rice has authorized the delivery of the deed conveying this property to the United States Department of the Interior purporting to grant a title unencumbered, except as set forth in said Agreement and as above referenced. J.A. at 404 (Ashley Letter). Randy Cook, as an agent of the United States, wrote Ashley a letter dated January 13, 1993. The letter stated: It is the policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to afford inholders with reasonable access to their property. We do not view the deed from Mr. Rice to the United States as infringing upon any right that might be held by Elvy Rorie, Jr. We have discussed this with our counsel in the Solicitor’s Office in Atlanta and he has advised us that this letter should serve to satisfy Mr. Rice’s concerns. Therefore, we are hopeful that Mr. Rice feels confident that this matter is resolved. J.A. at 436 (Cook Letter).