Court Opinion

ID: 9946492
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 19:17:17.328727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:35.470965
License: Public Domain

Vermont Superior Court
Filed oleh 22
e

Lamoil nit

STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Lamoille Unit Docket No. 45-4-20 Lecv

BRUCE MILLER and LAURA MILLER,
Plaintiffs

Vv.

LLOYD TILTON and LISA TILTON,
Defendants

DECISION

This case concerns property rights between abutters, who are also relatives, that were
created at the time of the subdivision of a former farm located on Route 109 in Cambridge. A
site visit was conducted on October 19, 2021 and a final hearing was held on January 18, 2022.
In February, the attorneys submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiffs
are represented by Attorney Brice Simon. Defendants are represented by Attorney William F.
Grigas. Based on the credible evidence, the court makes the following Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law.

Findings of Fact

Deed references show that Wesley J. Miller and Evelyn Miller bought the farm in 1956.
There is a very large dairy barn and milkhouse located on the property, apparently built in the
1950’s. The Millers’ homestead had frontage on Route 109 but was accessed by a driveway that
came off Route 109.

In 1979, Wesley J. and Evelyn Miller conveyed to their son, Plaintiff Bruce Miller, and
Sandra Miller a parcel from the farm described as approximately one acre,' together with spring
rights and an easement. The parcel had frontage on Route 109 and-was adjacent to the Wesley
and Evelyn Miller homestead, but the access to the one acre lot was by easement on the driveway
along the easterly edge of the lot conveyed, between the conveyed acre and the “former
homestead premises of the Grantors herein [Wesley and Evelyn Miller].” The driveway came off
Route 109 and led to the Grantors’ former homestead premises and the large barn and milkhouse.
The driveway appears to have been the major access into the farm property as well as to a
cemetery within the farm property and to have become known at some point as “Evelyn’s Way.”
The deed also conveyed the right to take water from “the water system which now serves the
existing homestead premises on the.northerly [apparently actually easterly] side of the
driveway.” There were additional detailed terms with respect to the right of repair, maintenance,

1 The specific description is a parcel 210 feet wide and 210 feet deep, which is not exactly one acre.

1
and replacement with respect to the water line and the spring source to which it led and to related
costs. “Said water right is intended for use in connection to a single family dwelling.”

At some point Bruce Miller constructed and lived in a home on the lot acquired in 1979
described as one acre, and he apparently worked the farm. In 1982, Wesley Miller and Evelyn
Miller conveyed additional farm acreage to Bruce Miller and Sandra Miller. By 2005, the
residents of the house on the one acre lot were Bruce Miller and Laura Miller. The disposition
and acquisition of ownership rights of both Sandra Miller and Laura Miller are unknown as there
was no evidence about them.

By 2003, there was a plan that each of the Miller children would be able to acquire a
piece of land from the former family farm. One of the children, Lisa, had married Lloyd Tilton.
The Tiltons were interested in acquiring a parcel large enough for more than one house. Bruce
Miller and Lloyd Tilton stood together on the farm property and pointed to where they intended
the boundaries of a parcel for the Tiltons to be. They agreed that the parcel would be bordered on
the east by the brook, and that the northern boundary, at the northeast corner of the parcel, would
be southerly boundary of the one acre house lot owned by Mr. Miller. The large barn was also
south of the one acre house lot. It was understood that the Tiltons’ parcel would include the barn.
Mr. Miller arranged for Harold Marsh to prepare a plan for purposes of conveyance of the parcel
to the Tiltons.

Mr. Marsh prepared a ‘Plan of Subdivision.” It is not in evidence, but it was attached to
the Defendants’ Answer as Exhibit A. It appears to show the acreage proposed to be conveyed to
the Tiltons. It also shows a smaller adjacent parcel to the east (apparently the 6.43 parcel later
occupied by Plaintiffs). It does not depict any buildings or features then on the ground.
Accordingly, it does not show the location of the barn or the former homestead of Wesley and
Evelyn Miller or the house on the one acre lot acquired by Bruce Miller, and it does not show the
driveway off Route 109 or the location of the spring or water system. It only shows perimeter
lines, and it does not show the boundary lines of the one acre lot previously conveyed to Bruce
and Sandra Miller as a separate lot.

As such, it suggests that the one acre piece was in common ownership with the other
acreage, and erroneously suggests that it was part of the parcel to be conveyed to the Tiltons.
There is no evidence in the record of the status of the title after 1979 or 1982 of either of the
parcels conveyed to Bruce and Sandra Miller at those times. Thus, the status of the title to either
property in 2003 (and now) is unknown.

The east boundary drawn by Mr. Marsh did not follow the line of the brook that flowed
south from Route 109 as the parties had intended (the brook was not depicted on the drawing),
but was a straight line. This line also represented a common boundary with the adjacent parcel to
the east. Although the timing is not clear, the evidence suggests that Bruce and Laura Miller
created this as a 6.43 acre lot for themselves for a new home, and that they subsequently moved
to a house on this lot.
By deed of April 18, 2005, Bruce Miller and Laura Miller? conveyed to Lloyd Tilton, Jr.
and Lisa Tilton a parcel described as 27.79 acres. The parcel is also described as being shown on
the Marsh survey, which was specifically referenced by date and noted as recorded in the
Cambridge Land Records. The deed was explicit, however, in stating that excepting from the
conveyance was the one acre parcel conveyed in 1979. Thus the actual acreage conveyed was
closer to 26.79 acres. Other than the references to the Marsh survey and the 1979 deed of the one
acre parcel, there is no other metes and bounds or other description of the boundaries of the
property conveyed.

Mr. Tilton understood that the parcel he and Lisa Tilton were acquiring included the large
dairy barn, and that the common boundary with the one acre lot was close to the barn, but he did
not know exactly where the property line was. There were no surveys or other maps that showed
the location of the barn in relation to proposed or established boundary lines.

The deed includes several other provisions related to the claims in this case:

Easement for Dairy.Barn Repair. The Tiltons were also granted “an easement on the
portion of the excepted one acre parcel abutting the former dairy barn on the premises conveyed
for the purpose of repairing and maintaining said barn, and a right of access thereto for said
purposes. . .” This provision makes it clear that the dairy barn was intended to be included in the
conveyance to the Tiltons, but recognizes how close it was to the one acre lot, resulting in the
necessity of an easement for the Tiltons to be able to enter the one acre lot for the purpose of
repair and maintenance of the barn.

Easement for Right-of Way. In negotiating terms of the conveyance, the Plaintiffs
insisted on retaining an easement to be able to access their 6.43 acre parcel through the former
farm, specifically from where the driveway left Route 109 and passed the one acre parcel? and
led to the barn (Evelyn’s Way), and then turned east on an existing gravel farm road and entered
their 6.43 acre parcel. The Tiltons did not want their land to be encumbered by such an easement.
An agreement was reached that the Tiltons’ parcel would be subject to such an easement, but it
would be for the benefit of Bruce and Laura Miller for only as long as they owned the 6.43 acre
parcel. It would not be appurtenant to their 6.43 acre parcel beyond that, could not be conveyed
to third parties, and would expire when they no longer owned the 6.43 acre parcel. The provision
for this easement is set forth in the deed as follows:

In addition to the rights and interests in land reserved to Grantors and their heirs
and assigns as set out above in connection with the then unimproved one acres

? The source of Laura Miller’s legal interest in the property was not established by evidence at trial. See subsequent
footnotes.

3 The owner(s) of the one acre lot held an easement over this portion of Evelyn’s Way for driveway purposes
as conveyed in the 1979 deed. There is no evidence in the record of the current owner(s) of the one acre lot, or of
any change in the title to it since it was created in 1979. The evidence is that it is currently occupied by Bruce
Miller’s son Evan Miller. It can be inferred from the evidence that Bruce Miller still holds his interest in it. It is
unknown if Sandra Miller continues to hold an interest in the property. There is no evidence that Laura Miller ever
acquired a deeded interest in it although apparently she lived there at the time of the 2005 deed to the Tiltons. See
the language quoted below from the 2005 deed concerning reservation of an easement by Bruce and Laura Miller.
parcel conveyed by Wesley J. Miller and Evelyn Miller, the GRANTORS herein
reserve to themselves, personally, in common with the GRANTEES, and
GRANTEES heirs and assigns, a right of way of ingress and egress, southerly
from Vermont Route 109 past GRANTORS?’ present residence located on the one
acre reserved parcel, past two barns and a portion of the “SMILIE CEMETERY”
to the “Farm Road” and thence easterly along the “Farm Road” to the westerly
boundary of a parcel of 6.43 acres, more or less, as shown on the above
referenced survey. The GRANTORS interest in the right of way retained in this
paragraph shall cease at such time as GRANTORS shall no longer own any
interest in the 6.43 parcel.

Exhibit 1, Page 1. This language indicates that at the time of this conveyance in 2005,
Bruce and Laura Miller were living in the residence on the one acre lot.*

Spring and Water System. In the deed to the Tiltons, the named Grantors (Bruce and
Laura Miller) also purported to reserve:

to themselves, their heirs and assigns, all rights in and to the spring and water
system which were not previously conveyed to Grantors in the Warranty Deed
from Wesley J. Miller and Evelyn Miller to Bruce F. Miller and Sandra V. Miller
dated September 30, 1979 and of record in Book 60, Pages 73-75 of the
Cambridge Land Records., including but not limited to the spring, pipeline, the
right to repair, maintain and replace the spring; the right to maintain, repair and
replace the pipeline; and the right to enter upon the premises conveyed for said
purposes. The spring supplying the water system is located westerly of the ten
“existing home premises on the northerly side of the driveway” identified in the
Warranty Deed of Wesley J. Miller and Evelyn Miller to Bruce F. Miller and
Sandra V. Miller dated September 30, 1979 and of record in Book 60, Pages 73-
75 and of the residence located on one acre parcel conveyed by Wesley J. Miller
and Evelyn Miller to Bruce F. Miller and Sandra V. Miller in said deed.

Exhibit 1, page 2. This deed purports to reserve to Bruce and Laura Miller rights in the
spring and water system not already conveyed to Bruce and Sandra Miller at the time of
the deed of the one acre parcel. As set forth in the footnote above, there is no evidence
that Laura Miller held a deeded interest in these residual rights, as there is no evidence
that Laura Miller held a deeded interest in the whole of the 27.79 acres that was being
conveyed to the Tiltons.°

Land Use Value Program. The deed referenced the enrollment of the parcel conveyed in
the land use value program for reduced property taxation for land used in farming. It is clear that

4 The deed to the Tiltons was also subject to driveway and farm road easements for farming purposes only
that had previously been conveyed to Gervais Family Farm, Inc. Those rights are not at issue in this suit.

5 It is possible that Laura Miller did hold such a deeded interest, as she signed the deed and warranted that she was
an owner, but it was not in evidence in the trial.
it was the intent of the deed that the property would continue to be eligible for the program, but
that if the parcel became ineligible, the Miller Grantors would have no liability for the land use
change tax:

The premises conveyed are enrolled in the Agricultural and Managed Forest Land
Use Value Program. This conveyance is made subject to any and all land use
change taxes or liens in favor of the State of Vermont arising under 32 V.S.A.
§3751 et seq. as a result of the enrollment of the property in that program. The
Grantees assume and agree to hold Sellers harmless from the lien and any liability
for said land use change taxes which may arise under the Agricultural and
Managed Forest Land Use Value Program.

Exhibit 1, page 3. Mr. Tilton testified at trial that removal or loss of acreage could result
in ineligibility for the program. He testified that two 2-acre portions have already been
removed, although the exact amount of acreage is not in evidence and it appears from
Exhibit 16 that it could be less as the “doublewide” lot appears to be only 1.13 acres.

Covenants. The deed contained the following covenants:

The above described premises are conveyed subject to the following covenants,
conditions, and restrictions which run with the land and are binding upon
Grantees and their heirs, successors and assigns:

1. The premises shall not be subdivided into more than four lots.
2. Not more that [sic] one single family residence shall be permitted on each lot.
3. No residences, other than single family residence shall be permitted on a lot.

Exhibit 1, page 3.

After acquiring the 26.79 +/- acre piece, Lloyd Tilton applied for a permit to
construct a waste water system for a second residence on the acquired land. The permit
was granted in January of 2006.

It appears that during the period from 2005 to 2014, Bruce and Laura Miller
moved to their new residence on the 6.43 acre lot and the Tiltons constructed a residence
for themselves and a second residence ( referred to as “the doublewide’’) on the 26.79 +/-
parcel. The second residence was located in the vicinity of where the Wesley and Evelyn
Miller’s former homestead had previously been (it was gone), but there is no evidence as
to a specific location. Bruce and Laura Miller were still living in the residence on the one
acre lot when the Tiltons installed the septic system for which the permit had been
obtained. The permitted system was designed to be placed in the vicinity of the location
of the spring and water system acquired by Bruce Miller from the 1979 one acre deed and
purportedly reserved by him and Laura Miller in the deed to the Tiltons. The Millers
could easily see that the system was being constructed on that site. They raised no issues
about it.
The Tiltons used the barn for agricultural purposes and insured it. The Millers
used their reserved easement for access to their 6.43 acre property. (The location of their
right of way is outlined in red on Exhibit 8.) The farm road portion had previously been
graveled and used for farm equipment. Neither the Tiltons nor the Millers maintained it
as a graveled road, and it reverted to grass, but the Millers used it and the Tiltons mowed
the grass as part of mowing surrounding lawn. Lloyd Tilton likes to keep his lawns well-
groomed and he did not like the Millers having or using the easement on what he
considered to be his land. In mowing his fields, from 2005 to 2014, he mowed only to the
brook, which he understood was the boundary between the Tilton parcel and the Millers’
6.43 acre parcel.

In 2014, the Tiltons were planning a subdivision for the doublewide to be on a
separate lot, and they had a survey done in preparation. See Exhibit 16. This plan
depicted all existing structures and features on both the one acre lot and the Tilton land. It
showed that the boundary line between the one acre parcel and the Tilton land cut right
through nearly the center of the large barn at an angle. It also depicted the common
boundary between the Tilton parcel and the Miller 6.43 acre parcel to the east as a
straight line rather than a line that followed the brook; at some point along the line it
began to run a few feet to the east of the centerline of the brook.

Lloyd Tilton concluded from the survey that he and his wife owned more land
than he had previously thought, and told Mr. Miller about this and began to extend his
mowing to include a strip of land a few feet wide to the east of the brook, thereby
asserting ownership. This is visible in the photograph admitted as Exhibit 8.

Tensions developed between the parties over several issues. Mr. Tilton did not
like the Millers using their easement on Evelyn’s Way and the farm road, which had
become grass. Mr. Miller was a school bus driver, and sometimes used the easement to
drive the school bus to his property to park it overnight on his 6.43 acre home parcel.
Although he has a separate access drive to his house from Route 109, the turn for the
school bus is easier when he uses the right of way. Mr. Tilton did not like the bus passing
through his land or the marks it made in his groomed and mowed field, and he tried to
stop Mr. Miller from driving the bus on the easement. Mr. Tilton claims that the Millers
damaged his land with the bus. The photos on which he relies to claim damage to Tilton
land show the normal kind of temporary muddy ruts that develop in the spring when the
ground is wet and vehicles drive on a field, but the ground dries out as the water table
lowers. This is a predictable consequence of use of a right of way on grassy land. The
ruts shown in the evidence photos are typical temporary consequences of spring driving
on wet soil, and do not constitute damage to the land.

The Tiltons told the Millers’ grandchildren not to use the easement to go to and
from their grandparents’ house. Laura Miller wants them to be able to use that access
route rather than walk on Route 109. The Millers thought the Tiltons should maintain the
right of way as a graveled farm road, as it had been before, whereas the Tiltons did not
want them to use it at all.
Bruce Miller testified in a general way that the spring rights conveyed to him in
1979 were located where the septic system is now, but there was no specific
identification of where the spring or water system was actually located on the ground
compared to the current location of the septic system constructed by the Tiltons. The
testimony was vague, conflicting, and inconclusive as to where on the ground the original
Wesley and Eveylyn Miller homestead was and where the spring is and what pipes were
where and the configuration of those features in relation to the physical layout of the
current septic system. There was no actual description of what the “water system”
consisted of. Laura Miller testified that if they were unable to use the spring rights, it
would cost $10,000 to dig a well, but she acknowledged that this was an estimate based
entirely on the expense someone else incurred to dig a well at a different location.

The Tiltons’ son and grandson live with them in their residence. The son and
grandson occupy the ground floor, which has a kitchenette and an exterior door. There is
no lease and they do not pay rent or utilities. Laura Miller checked the listers’ card at the
Town Clerk’s office and found that there is a “note” that says “2018 Added apt finish.”
The Millers believe that the Tiltons are in violation of the covenant that only single
family residences are permitted, as Ms. Miller believes that a “single family” consists of
parents and children, and does not include extended family members.

When the Tiltons plowed the driveways on their property, they plowed the snow
into piles that obstructed the Millers’ easement access to their property over the farm
road. They also parked a van and a car in a manner that obstructed the Millers’ access to
their property via the farm road.

Tensions ran especially high in the summer of 2021. Mr. Tilton’s father visited
for an extended period of time and hooked his RV up to the septic system on the Tilton
property. The Millers complained to the Environmental Compliance Division of the
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. An investigator visited the property and said that
the hookup was a violation, and needed to be disconnected. Mr. Tilton disconnected the
hookup. Mr. Tilton testified that it was at this time that the Millers raised their complaint
for the first time about the septic system having been constructed on the site of the spring
rights, even though the septic system had been visibly constructed on that site in 2006, 15
years earlier. However, the Millers asserted a claim to spring rights in the original
complaint in this case, which was filed prior to the summer of 2021.

The Tiltons have kept the barn locked and do not allow the Millers to access the
portion of the barn that is within the boundary lines of the one acre lot. They maintain
security cameras on the barn. Both parties are amenable to shifting the property boundary
so that the barn is entirely on Tilton land rather than straddling the two properties. The
Tilton’s concern is whether that would jeopardize eligibility for the land use value
program if an adjustment would diminish their acreage to such an extent as to trigger the
land use change tax.
At the conclusion of the trial on January 18, 2022, the parties were to explore
whether they could do a boundary line adjustment to avoid having a boundary line cutting
across the barn without triggering land use change tax liability. There has been nothing
filed indicating that anything has been done on this issue.

Conclusions of Law

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the court makes the following
Conclusions of Law based on the law applicable to the Plaintiffs’ claims.

Boundary Lines; Reformation of Deed

Plaintiffs claim that the terms of the deed conveyed to Defendants contain a
mutual mistake, and seek reformation of the deed. The applicable law is set forth in
LaRock y. Hill, 131 Vt. 528 (1973) as follows: “[I]n an action for the reformation of a
deed on the basis that the deed does not represent the actual conveyance intended by the
parties, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that there existed, previous to the deed,
a valid agreement representing a standard to which the erroneous writing can be
reformed, so as to express the true transaction between the parties.” LaRock at 530. The
burden is on the party seeking reformation to establish the true agreement to which the
deed is to be reformed. Id.

The Findings of Fact show that Plaintiffs have met this burden. There is no
disagreement between the parties that the intent of the 2005 deed was to convey a parcel
with a boundary located such that the barn was wholly within the parcel conveyed to the
Tiltons, even though the barn was close to the boundary line. The evidence also
establishes that the eastern boundary was to follow the line of the brook. The terms of the
deed itself confirm that the barn was intended to be conveyed to the Tiltons, as it
references the barn but only for the purpose of granting an easement exclusively for
purposes of maintenance and repair. After the conveyance, both parties acted in
conformance with their agreement, and not the deed or Marsh drawing, for the next 9
years: the Tiltons used the whole barn and insured it, and the Tiltons mowed only up to
the brook and not beyond, believing that the brook was the boundary.

Plaintiffs have proved grounds for reformation based on mutual mistake, and
based on having proved the terms of the true agreement between the parties. The mistake
was a mutual one, as both parties believed that the deed conformed to their agreement,
when it did not. Both parties are equally responsible for having apparently not paid close
enough attention to the accuracy of the Marsh plan and the deed, and for having
completed a real estate transfer that was not in accordance with their agreement.
Therefore, the costs of reformation are to be borne equally by the parties.

Further work will be necessary to issue a judgment reforming the deed. The court
will schedule a status conference to identify the necessary steps. The parties are
encouraged to seek to identify specific locations for boundary adjustments to accomplish
this task. Plaintiffs seek to acquire additional land from the Tiltons to make up for any
loss in acreage due to adjustment of the boundary line close to the barn, but the court
concludes that reformation of the deed does not compel that Plaintiffs are entitled to
compensation acreage.

Plaintiffs’ Easement

Pursuant to the deed, the Plaintiffs hold an easement for access to their 6.43 acre
parcel from Route 109 through Defendants’ property along Evelyn’s Way and then
turning east on the former farm road to their parcel. As a result of the disagreements that
have developed over use and maintenance of the easement, both parties have requested
clarification of their respective rights and responsibilities.

The easement is described in the deed as “a right of way of ingress and egress.”
Although the word easement is not used, courts typically treat a grant of a “right of way”
as the grant of “an easement for passage over a described strip of land.” Bruce and Ely,
The Law of Easements and Licenses in Land, §1:24 (2022). The use permitted for the
easement is for ingress and egress, and is not limited in any other way as to use. For
example, there is no limitation as to the type of vehicle used for ingress and egress.

*[P]arties are deemed to have contemplated the easement holder's right to do
whatever is reasonably convenient or necessary in order to enjoy fully the purposes for
which the easement was granted.” Jd. at §8:3 (Citations omitted.) The use of a right of
way for ingress and egress means the easement may be used by any one who has a valid
reason to use it for access to the Millers’ 6.43 acre property. This includes use by others
invited to or needing access to the Plaintiffs’ land such as family members, invitees,
tradespeople, public officials, etc. in addition to the Plaintiffs themselves. “Reasonable
purposes also include use by tenants, guests, and invitees of the dominant estate owner.”
Id. at §8:4. Use is not limited to only Bruce and Laura Miller as individuals. However
they cannot give the right to anyone else or pass it on to a buyer, and the easement right
terminates when they no longer own their 6.43 parcel.

There are no other restrictions on the manner in which it may be used as long as
it is used for the purpose of ingress and regress to the 6.43 acre parcel. In other words,
the Tiltons, although they have the right to use the right of way themselves and mow it,
have no right to restrict Mr. Miller from driving his school bus or any other type of
vehicle on the easement for access to his property. “Although the servient owner is
entitled to use the servient land, the owner may not unreasonably interfere with the
easement holder's enjoyment of the servitude. Unreasonable interference with an
easement holder's use of the servient estate constitutes an infringement upon a valuable
property right.” Jd. at §8:21. The Tiltons have no right to restrict Miller family members,
such as grandchildren, or any other pedestrians going to the Millers’ 6.43 acre parcel,
from using the easement for access or departure.

Although the strip of land defining the easement was a graveled farm road at the
time the easement was created, there was no express term requiring the Tiltons to
maintain it as a graveled road. It is fine for them to allow it to revert to grass, and they

9
may mow the grass, as long as they do not obstruct passage over the easement. On the
other hand, the Millers have the right to repair and maintain the easement, and the
obligation to repair if their use causes damage. Jd. at §8:37. Thus, they may apply gravel
at their own expense in conjunction with their access use, and they are responsible for
repairing any non-temporary damage.

The Tiltons do not have the right to pile snow or park vehicles on the easement
route. They have the legal obligation to leave the strip of easement land unobstructed for
use by the Millers for ingress and egress until termination of the easement when the
Plaintiffs no longer own the 6.43 acre parcel.

Covenant for Single Family Residences

The Tilton family residing in their residence includes their son and grandson. It is
not uncommon for family groups to include multigenerational members. The concept of
“family” is not limited to one generation of parents and their offspring. The evidence is
that neither rent nor utility expenses are charged or paid by the son for himself and his
child. In addition, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the downstairs portion of
the house is permanently blocked off from the upstairs to create structurally separate
units with no possibility of interaction within the house. Despite the existence of a
kitchenette and external door downstairs, the credible evidence is that the situation is
comparable to that in which a wing of a house or a bedroom area is used primarily by
certain members of a family on a semiprivate basis but without restricting access by other
members of the family unit and without actually breaking the house in to separate units.
Plaintiffs have not shown that the Defendants have violated the covenant provisions
requiring that residences on the property be single family residences.

Spring and Water System

Plaintiffs have the burden of proof to show that both of them hold a present legal
interest in the spring and water system, that Defendants have damaged the spring or their
access to it and/or the water system, and that protection of their rights calls for an order
mandating restoration of the access to the spring and water system or proof of the amount
of compensation they are entitled to as a result of loss.

While it may be reasonably inferred from the evidence that Bruce Miller holds
such rights, Plaintiffs have not proved that Linda Miller actually holds a legal interest in
the spring rights at issue, as there is insufficient evidence of deeded rights to her of either
the spring rights that were conveyed to Bruce and Sandra Miller in the 1979 deed or of
the spring rights that were retained by Wesley and Evelyn Miller in that deed. The chain
of title of such rights has not been proved.

In addition, the specific location of the spring itself and the components and
location of the “water system” referenced in the 2005 deed have not been sufficiently
identified. On the site visit, a general area was pointed to, with no specificity as where the
spring, the components of the “water system,” and the septic system are actually located

10
in relation to each other. While the septic system is shown on one admitted exhibit, there
is insufficient documentary evidence of the specific location of the spring or water
system, or the location of these items in relation to the placement of the septic system.
The testimonial evidence was only that the spring was in the same general location as the
septic system, but without specific proof of location.

There was no evidence of what the “water system” consists of, or the distance of
either the spring or the water system from the boundary between the one acre parcel and
the remaining land conveyed in the 2005 deed. As a result of lack of evidence, the court
does not have a sufficient factual basis for determining that the installation of the Tiltons’
septic system damaged the spring or “water system.”

Even if it were to be considered that a general indication of location were enough
from which reasonable inferences could be made that the “water system” was affected by
the installation of the septic system (about which there is no specific evidence), there is
still insufficient factual information about the system itself or the spring, what it
provided, and what would be needed to restore or replace it. Moreover, the evidence as to
damages was insufficient to meet the Plaintiffs’ burden of proof as to the cost
representing damages. The $10,000 figure was unreliable evidence based on hearsay
from a third party as to what it cost that person to dig a well at an entirely different
location with potentially different ground water conditions. Proof of damages is
insufficient.

Plaintiffs’ claim regarding damage to spring and water system rights has not been
proved. Judgment will be granted to Defendants on this claim.

Order

A status conference will be scheduled to address the practical steps needed to
complete reformation of the deed. No final judgment will issue until that is completed.
The final judgment shall be based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law.

Electronically signed pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d) on April 21, 2022 at 1:12 PM.

Mary iffes Teachout
Superid¥ Court Judge

11