Preview:

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ___________________________

Merrimack No. 2010-372

AARON M. BOISSY & a. v. RUTH CHEVION Argued: June 9, 2011 Opinion Issued: September 20, 2011 Coughlin, Rainboth, Murphy & Lown, P.A., of Portsmouth (Kenneth D. Murphy on the brief and orally), for the petitioners.

Ruth Chevion, by brief and orally, pro se.

DALIANIS, C.J. The respondent, Ruth Chevion, appeals, and the petitioners, Aaron M. and Katie E. Boissy, cross-appeal, an order of the Superior Court (Smukler, J.) granting in part and denying in part the petitioners' petition to quiet title. The trial court ruled that the respondent lacked an easement to use a certain well on the petitioners' property, but that she had a deeded right-of-way over the property to access a former ice pond. We affirm. The trial court found the following facts. The parties own neighboring parcels of land in Hopkinton. The petitioners own three lots, one of which

adjoins the respondent's lot. The petitioners brought this action to quiet title to two easements the respondent claimed to have on their property. The first easement allegedly gave the respondent the right to pipe water to her house from a well on one of the petitioners' three lots. The second easement allegedly gave the respondent a right-of-way over the petitioners' property to access an "ice pond." The trial court rejected the petitioners' assertion that the respondent's well easement was extinguished by abandonment. The trial court ruled that the easement was extinguished, nonetheless, because its purpose -- to allow use of a certain well on the petitioners' property -- was impossible to accomplish. See Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes)

Download 2010-372 Aaron M. Boissy & a. v. Ruth Chevion.pdf

New Hampshire Law