Court Opinion

ID: 9929103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 18:17:16.99971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:10:36.845377
License: Public Domain

Vermont Superior Court
                                                                                                   Filed 01/08 24
                                                                                                      Orleans nit

                                STATE OF VERMONT
SUPERIOR COURT                                                      CIVIL DIVISION
ORLEANS UNIT                                                 Docket # 239-10-18 Oscv

CINDY SANVILLE,
Plaintiff,

V.

TOWN OF ALBANY,
MARY LOU BUCHANAN,
RALPH BUCHANAN
Defendants

And

RALPH BUCHANAN,
Cross Claim Plaintiff,

V.

TOWN OF ALBANY,
Cross Claim Defendant

             FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER

        This case concerns a parcel of land currently owned by the Town of Albany but subject to
a condition and right of entry held by heirs of the original grantors. Plaintiff Cindy Sanville is
the owner of adjoining property and has sued both the Town and the purported holder of the right
of entry, Ralph Buchanan, seeking a declaration concerning the right to ownership of the
property. Defendant Buchanan has ﬁled a cross claim against the Town seeking ownership
pursuant to the right of entry based on a claim of non-use of the property in Violation of a
condition in the deed. The Town opposes both claims and asserts the right to continuing
ownership.
        A ﬁnal hearing was held on December 18, 2023. Cindy Sanville was present and
represented by Attorney Michael Tarrant; Brian Goodridge, Selectboard member was present on
behalf of the Town which was represented by Attorney Claudine C. Safar; and Ralph Buchanan
was present and represented by Attorney William L. Durrell. The court had previously
conducted a site visit with the parties and attorneys on September 19, 2023.
        Prior rulings in a Vermont Supreme Court decision on interlocutory appeal, have
established the following:

                o    The 1955 deed conveyed to the Town fee simple ownership subject to a condition
                     subsequent such that Buchanan heirs hold a right of entry which they may
                     exercise if the condition speciﬁed in the deed is violated. 1
                o    Logging by the Town on the subject property did not constitute a Violation of the
                     deed condition and thus the Buchanan heirs were not entitled to exercise the right
                     of entry on the basis of Town logging. 2

           Based on the evidence, the court makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
Law, and Order.

                                                        Findings of Fact
        The parcel at issue is an undeveloped piece of land located on the shore of Hartwell Pond
in the Town of Albany. It has not been surveyed and the exact acreage is unknown but it is
estimated to be less than 40 acres. Hartwell Pond is a clean and pristine natural pond, home to
wildlife. There is no public access to it. The entire shoreline is in private ownership and used
mostly for seasonal camps. The portion of the parcel along the shorefront is thickly wooded and
there are no roads or access trails leading to the pond. The terrain rises steeply uphill away from
the pond. There is a ﬂat plateau area above, near the Town road, that was also thickly wooded
until recent logging described below but now has an open area where the log landing was.

        Decades ago the property was owned by ancestors of Ralph Buchanan who were very
involved in 4-H and worked with young 4-H members on forestry projects. In 1955, the two
owners of the parcel, Emma Buchanan (Ralph Buchanan’s grandmother) and R.O. Buchanan (the
brother of Emma’s deceased husband) deeded the property to the Town on the following terms:

           It is expressly understood and agreed that in the event the Grantee shall use or
           suffer the use of said lands for any other purpose than as a memorial 4-H forest
           for use by young people in particular, and for 4-H recreational and forestry
           purposes, this conveyance shall thereupon become void and the title to said
           premises on demand shall revert to the Grantors, their successors and assigns, and
           they shall have the right to re-enter and repossess themselves of the same.
At that time, approximately 7-9 acres of the parcel was planted with red pine, white pine,
and Norway spruce. As later determined by a forester who examined the growth circles of
the trees, the plantation was likely planted in the 1930’s. There is no evidence about the
use of the property for several years after the 195 5 deed. Cindy Sanville was born in 1961

1
    Decision of October 6, 2022. The trial court ruling that the right held was a right of entry upon condition
subsequent, and not an automatic right of reversion, was not challenged in the interlocutory appeal that addressed
construction of deed terms. Sanville v. Town 0fAlbany, 2022 VT 22, 11 23.
2
 Id. at 11 20.
and went to her relatives’ camp on Hartwell Pond frequently in the summer while
growing up. She had an understanding that the parcel belonged to the boy scouts.
        In 1975, John Michael Green was a municipal forester for the State of Vermont.
His job included approaching towns and Villages in the northern part of the state to
encourage them to have their municipal forests become certiﬁed so that the State could
provide them with forestry services. He Visited the property and observed the plantation
of softwoods and their age and condition. He determined that the plantation trees were
close together and needed thinning--some needed to be removed to let others grow as
healthy trees. He is the one who counted the rings and determined that the trees had been
planted in the 30’s. He concluded that the plantation trees had not been touched since
they were planted. He also observed that the section of hardwood in back of the
plantation was in need of “TSI,” meaning timber stand improvement. He notified the
Town of the opportunity to certify the forest and receive the benefit of forestry services
from the State, but he never heard back. He visited the forest again in 2023 in connection
with this litigation and determined that the plantation trees had not grown well because
they had not been thinned and had become subject to fungus and disease, and that the
remaining plantation trees should be cut.
       There is no evidence of any activity on the property between 1975 and 2015. The
4-H program in Vermont had been administered by the University of Vermont Extension
Service since 1913. 4-H activities had become less active over time. While there had once
been a 4-H chapter in Albany, there no longer was. Ralph Buchanan lived in Brattleboro,
and had no knowledge of the property or the terms of the deed.

        In 2013, Jared Nunery became the Orleans County Forester. In 2015, Sarah
Clenman, acting on behalf of the UVM Extension Service, contacted Mr. Nunery
regarding the status of the forest. In response Mr. Nunery visited the property and
observed that the plantation of softwoods occupied about one-third of the property, and
that the trees were still growing as originally spaced, as there had been no thinning or
maintenance of the plantation.

        At Town meeting in March of 201 8, there was brief discussion of the property. A
Paul Daniels advised that he had recently met with the County Forester, who
recommended harvesting the timber on the property. The proceeds could be used to
replenish town funds or support town initiatives. Selectboard member Brian Goodridge
contacted Mr. Nunery.

        On August 21, 2018 at a Selectboard meeting, a logger presented a timber harvest
proposal to the Board. The Minutes include the following: “Phil advised the Selectboard
is in communication with 4-H via UVM to participate in an educational project during the
timber harvest of the plantation. Brian has been in contact with the forester who will meet
with the 4-H representative on a coordinated project within the next few weeks.” A
motion to accept the timber contract passed.
        On September 5, 2018, Mr. Goodridge and Mr. Nunery did a preliminary walk-
through of the property with a focus on proposed forest management, with Mr. Nunery’s
observations later summarized in an email dated September 17, 2018. The day after the
Visit, Mr. Nunery notiﬁed Mr. Goodridge that he had been in touch with a teacher at the
Albany School who was excited to bring her class to the property once the timber harvest
got going. There was also discussion of school children being involved in planting trees
for reforestation following the timber harvest and other activities such as sugaring.

          At a Selectboard meeting in September, a written “tentative outline,” resulting
from the meeting that had occurred on September 5th, for plans for use of the property
was distributed for discussion. The proposal was for: the logging to take place, the
Orleans County Forester to “coordinate with the Albany Community School Principal to
conduct educational, age appropriate ﬁeld trips this fall,” the log landing to become a
parking lot, establishment of an access point to the pond for nonmotorized boats, and an
area for limited camping and recreational use including a pavilion.

        On September l3, 2018, Brian Goodridge emailed Mr. Nunery that a meeting
would take place the following Tuesday with UVM representative Chuck Ross. Mr. Ross,
on behalf of 4-H, attended a Selectboard meeting and supported the Town’s project plans.
At some point a site visit took place attended by Brian Goodridge, Sarah Clenman of the
UVM Extension service, Kate Forrer from the UVM forestry program, the logging
contractor, and Mr. Nunery.

       On September 26, 2018, Ms. Sanville emailed Brian Goodridge. She had
researched the deed and stated her conclusion that the deed condition meant that only 4-H
was to use the land. She wanted to stop the proposed timber harvest. Mr. Goodridge
responded as follows: “We have consulted with our town layer [sic] and UVMs lawyer
who oversees 4 H has looked over deeds and sees nothing wrong with what we are
doing.”
       Ms. Sanville located and contacted Ralph Buchanan, a descendant of the deed
grantors, who was unaware of the Town’s plans or the rights of family heirs.

        On October 3, 2018, Ms. Sanville ﬁled the Complaint in this lawsuit and included
a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. A hearing was
held on October l6, 2018. The Town was allowed to remove all the cut logs to date but
do no further cutting, and was required to put all proceeds into escrow. Mr. Buchanan
visited the property shortly thereafter and saw that trees had been cut and logs were still
on the ground.

         On November 28, 2018, the court ordered that Mary Lou Buchanan and Ralph
Buchanan be joined in the lawsuit. Mr. Buchanan ﬁled a cross claim against the Town,
claiming title to the property and damages from the logging. Ultimately, his claim for
damages from logging failed and his claim that the logging triggered the right of reentry
failed, as the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that exclusive 4-H use was not mandated by
the deed and logging was sufﬁciently “closely related to 4-H recreational and forestry

                                                   4
activities” that it did not constitute a Violation of the deed condition. Id. Mr. Buchanan
then ﬁled an amended complaint seeking to enforce the right of entry based on non-use of
the property by the Town. That claim is presently before the court.

       In September and October of 2019, the Town and UVM Extension Service and
UVM entered into a written Memorandum of Understanding regarding uses and plans for
the property. The UVM Extension Program stated that it had been briefed on the Town’s
plans and had no objection to the contemplated improvements “that would allow and
encourage greater use of the parcel by both 4-H participants and the general public.” The
“contemplated improvements” are speciﬁcally described as:

       (l) Hiring a logger to harvest the tree farm in the upper area and conduct selective
           harvesting in the lower area;
       (2) Place money in a separate account to be used exclusively for the property; and
       (3) Build a parking area, trail to the pond, a lean-to, and a port-o-let or a pit toilet.
It stated that “4-H anticipates using the parcel for educational and recreational
programming.” The parties agreed to jointly approve any and all improvements. Specific
terms regarding communication, scheduling, and evaluations were agreed upon. 4-H is
permitted to use the improvements at all times in the same manner as the general public.
Furthermore, “upon at least 21 days advance notice to the Town, 4-H may have exclusive
use of the parcel or any portion thereof. At all other times, the parcel shall remain open
for public use.” It was signed on behalf of the Town Selectboard, University of Vermont,
and UVM Extension.

       On October 1, 2019, the Selectboard of the Town adopted a Resolution approving
the Memorandum of Understanding

Heirs ofEmma Buchanan and R. 0. Buchanan

       The property was deeded in 1931 to Bruce Buchanan and R. O. Buchanan.

       Bruce Buchanan died in 1953, and his one-half interest in the Albany property
was conveyed by Probate Court decree to Emma Buchanan on March 28, 1955.

        The deed from Emma Buchanan and R. O. Buchanan to the Town of Albany,
reserving a right of entry to their heirs on condition subsequent, was dated April 6, 195 5.
       Emma Buchanan is heirs

       Emma had a son named Leonard. Leonard died in April of 2006. There is no
evidence of who all of his heirs were, or whether an estate was probated or any interests
conveyed or decreed to anyone. Leonard was married to Mary Lou Buchanan. Ralph
Buchanan is their son. Presumably Ralph Buchanan may be an heir of Leonard, and Mary
Lou Buchanan may also have been an heir at the time the lawsuit started. There is
insufﬁcient evidence to establish these as facts.
        Mary Lou suffered a stroke in 2014. She was in a nursing home and could not
communicate well for several years. In 2018 she was in no condition to take care of
herself. Ralph Buchanan had power of attorney for her. On October 19, 2018, shortly
after Ralph Buchanan had learned of the Albany property, she executed a deed on her
own behalf quitclaiming any interest in the Albany property to Ralph Buchanan, who
testiﬁed that it was executed by her in person in the presence of her attorney. It is
unknown whether or not she was competent to execute a legal document on her own
behalf at the time. She died on July 29, 2019.

       R. 0. Buchanan 3* heirs

        There is no information about when R.O Buchanan died, or who his heirs were at
the time of his death. (It can be inferred from the evidence that he has died.)

       R.O. Buchanan had two children, Andrew and David.
       Andrew was married and had six children, one of whom has died. On March 6,
2019, a quitclaim deed conveying his interest in the Albany property to Ralph Buchanan
was executed on his behalf by Jennae A. Buchanan, POA. While the deed is in evidence,
no power of attorney is, and there is no evidence establishing that a valid power of
attorney was in effect at the time of the conveyance. Andrew has died. It is unknown
who his heirs were at the time of his death. His widow and ﬁve of his children are still
alive.

       David is living. On January 30, 2019, he executed a quitclaim deed conveying his
interest in the Albany property to Ralph Buchanan.

                                       Conclusions of Law

       Cindy Sanville seeks a declaration that the Town’s use and proposed use of the
property is in violation of the deed condition. She argues that even if the Town is
permitted to engage in silviculture (as allowed by the Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling),
there was no silviculture at all from the 1930’s until 2018, and furthermore that the
proposed future uses by the general public, such as camping, with 4-H having only
occasional use, is not consistent with the purpose of the deed according to its terms.

      Ralph Buchanan argues that the deed condition was violated when the property
was unused, with no silviculture taking place from the 1930’s to 2018, and that based on
this nonuse and the rights of Buchanan heirs that he holds, he is entitled to exercise the
right of reentry and obtain title to the property.
       The Town argues that the terms of the MOU, including use by the people of the
Town, are consistent with the purpose of the deed provisions, and that if the intent was
exclusive use by 4-H, the property could have been deeded to 4-H. It further argues that
Mr. Buchanan has not proved that he is the sole heir entitled to the right of entry.
Whether there has been a violation of the deed condition

        The facts show that the Town did not undertake any afﬁrmative action to make
use of the property from the time it acquired it in 1955 to 2018, nor is there any evidence
that 4-H made any use of the property. The plantation of softwood trees was growing but
neglected. The Town did not even follow up on the opportunity it was offered in 1975 to
have the State provide forestry services to promote healthy and productive growth of the
plantation.

         However, by the time this lawsuit was ﬁled in October of 201 8, that situation had
changed signiﬁcantly. Beginning at Town meeting day in March of that year, a timber
harvest was proposed as recommended by the County Forester. By August, the Town and
4-H (through the UVM Extension Program) were in communication about the proposed
forestry plan and uses of the property. In September, speciﬁc plans were being developed
for harvesting of the plantation, use of the property by 4-H, educational programs for
school children based on use of the forest, and recreational use of the forest by the public
on a limited basis, including simple camping facilities and trail access to the pond for
non-motorized boating. Flaming continued, and by October of 2019, an MOU was
signed between the Town and the UVM ofﬁcials responsible for the 4-H program in the
state. It reserved for 4-H the opportunity for unlimited exclusive use with only 3 weeks
notice while providing for limited public use of the property in a manner that maintained
the integrity of the forest.

        When the Vermont Supreme Court construed the provisions of the deed condition,
it explicitly ruled that the deed did not provide for exclusive 4-H use, and that
furthermore uses were allowed that were “closely related” to those speciﬁed in the deed
language: “[W]e conclude that it is clear that logging is at least one use related to forests
and to 4-H recreational and forestry activities. . . Indeed, logging appears to be so closely
related to these purposes, the absence of an express prohibition on logging in the deed is
striking. . .” Id. (citations omitted). The effect of the ruling is that (a) the Town may
allow others than 4-H members to use the property while preserving the opportunity for
4-H use, and (b) any uses by others must be “closely related” to “a memorial 4-H forest
for use by young people in particular, and for 4-H recreational and forestry purposes.”

         The “contemplated improvements” agreed upon between the Town and 4-H in the
MOU provide for uses that are completely compatible with maintenance of a forest that is
a 4-H memorial forest, and with 4-H recreational and forestry purposes. The plan does
not provide for cutting down any trees except for the remaining plantation trees that need
harvesting in connection with recommended forestry practices and “selective” cutting in
the lower wooded portion of the property, presumably in accord with “timber stand
improvement” practices. Thus the MOU provisions will preserve the property as a whole
in a forested state as a “memorial 4-H forest.” Using the cleared log landing as a parking
lot for school buses and others will provide a parking space for those using the property
for recreational and forestry purposes. Rudimentary camping facilities and an access trail
to the pond for canoes and kayaks will enable 4-H members and others to use the
property for recreational experiences on a forested property.
        In sum, the planned uses are all consistent with the intended 4-H use of the
property as described in the deed, and because the deed did not make the uses exclusive
to 4-H, the Supreme Court ruling means that the Town is allowed to permit the same uses
by others as well. It is also noteworthy that under the MOU, 4-H has the opportunity to
have unlimited exclusive use of the entire property for its recreational and forestry
purposes when it chooses to do so and provides only 21 days notice.

        The court concludes that prior to the ﬁling of the lawsuit, the Town had
undertaken plans for uses of the property compatible with the deed condition, and the
current plan as set forth in the MOU does not violate the condition. Thus there is no right
on the part of Buchanan heir(s) to exercise the right of reentry and obtain ownership of
the property.

Whether Entitlement t0 Exercise the Right ofReentry Has been Proved

      As the Findings of Fact show, there is evidence suggesting that Ralph Buchanan
may be a person with the right of reentry if the condition is violated, and may be the only
such person, but the evidence presented at the hearing is not sufﬁcient to meet the burden
of proof that he is an heir and the sole person entitled to exercise the right of reentry upon
violation of the deed condition. He is not precluded from proving, in a future action, that
he has the right if he asserts a claim based on an alleged violation of the deed condition.

                                               Order
       For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ordered that:

        l. Cindy Sanville’s request for a declaration is granted and the court declares that
            at the present time the Town shall maintain a continuing right to possession of
            the subject property under the deed terms;
       2. Ralph Buchanan’s claim to quiet title has not been proved;
       3. The Town is entitled to continued possession of the subject property on the
          terms set forth in the 1955 deed; and
       4. The Town’s attorney shall prepare a Judgment pursuant to this Decision for
          review by other counsel pursuant to V.R.C.P. 58 (d).

Electronically signed January 8, 2024 pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9 (d).

Mary Miles Teachout
Superior Judge (Ret.), Specially Assigned