In re Monadnock
Decision Date | 08 February 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 2000-325.,2000-325. |
Citation | 790 A.2d 786,147 N.H. 419 |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Parties | In re PACK MONADNOCK. |
Thomas F. Irwin, staff attorney, Conservation Law Foundation, of Concord by brief and orally, for the plaintiff.
Philip T. McLaughlin, attorney general (Douglas N. Jones, assistant attorney general, on the brief, and Mary Castelli, assistant attorney general, orally), for the defendant.
The plaintiff, Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), appeals an order by the Hillsborough County Probate Court (Cloutier , J.), denying its request to remove a communication tower located on the summit of Pack Monadnock. We affirm.
B.P. Cheney recorded the deeds on June 14, 1892. Cheney, however, never exercised any control over General James Miller Park (park), nor did he appoint a successor trustee prior to his death in 1895. At no time following Cheney's death did the Governor appoint a successor trustee as required in the deeds.
Since 1892, the State has treated the land as a state reservation. For example, during the dedication of the park on June 22, 1892, Governor Tuttle was reported as "accepting the Park in behalf of the State." Furthermore, in a 1906 Report of the Highway Engineer and Governor and Council, the park was described as a "state reservation." In 1915 the legislature authorized the forestry commission to manage and care for the park in accordance with Laws 1909, 128:20, which established the forestry commission's authority to direct any improvements on land vested in the State and "forever held for the purposes of a public park." Laws 1915, ch. 187.
Since 1915, the park has been managed as a public park by various State agencies and several improvements have been made, including the addition of 530 acres of land. Currently, the New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development (DRED) manages the park.
In 1938, DRED erected a fire tower on the Melendy tract and over the years, several antennae were affixed to it. In 1997, DRED issued a permit to the New Hampshire Department of Safety to construct a 134-foot communication tower and a small accompanying communication building on the Melendy tract. The facilities were designed to function as part of a state-wide, multi-user public safety communications network administered by the department of safety, and to replace the antenna tower and equipment building located at the fire tower.
By December 1998, construction of the communication tower was almost complete. On December 23, 1998, CLF commenced an equitable proceeding in superior court seeking the removal of the new facility from the Melendy tract. CLF argued that the construction of a communication tower violated the terms of the trust created by the Melendy deed in 1891.
The State moved to dismiss the superior court proceedings for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over the interpretation, construction and modification of express trusts pursuant to RSA 547:3, I(c) (Supp.2001). The State then filed a petition for instructions in the probate court asking whether it is appropriate for the State to continue to use the Melendy tract, "conveyed to it in 1891 as a charitable trust for use as a public park and pleasure ground, for public safety purposes, when changing communications and technological needs make the summit of Pack Monadnock a critical link in a state-wide public communications system used by public agencies, including state and local police?" The Superior Court (Smukler , J.) stayed its proceeding pending the resolution of the trust issues before the probate court.
After holding a trial, the probate court determined that the unambiguous terms of the deed conveyed the property to Cheney in trust. It also determined that Melendy conveyed the property to Cheney, in trust, for the sole purpose of providing a temporary mechanism to convey title to the State, with Cheney only acting as an "instrument to pass title." Thus, the probate court determined that the State has a legal interest in the Melendy tract in the form of a "reservation" and that Melendy's intent was for the land to be used as a public park or pleasure ground for public use and to be known as the General James Miller Park.
In determining whether the erection of the tower violated the express language of the trust, the probate court noted that it is unclear whether Melendy intended to create a public trust or a covenant to run with the land. It concluded that irrespective of whether Melendy intended to convey a public trust or a covenant, "the land has always been used by the State as a public park or pleasure ground for public use and acted on as a reservation of the State." The court denied CLF's request to remove the communication tower because the park has been used in accordance with the expressed intent of the grantor, and the erection of the tower does not interfere with the recreational use of the land.
On appeal CLF argues, among other things, that the probate court erred in ruling that the State acquired a legal interest in the property because the court: (1) erroneously relied upon extrinsic evidence or, in the alternative, lacked sufficient evidence to support its finding that Melendy intended the property to be used as a state reservation; (2) exceeded its subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) failed to rule that the State was judicially estopped from arguing that it acquired a legal interest in the property because the State originally represented that the deed created an enforceable charitable trust.
First, CLF argues that the probate court erred in ruling that the communications facility does not violate unambiguous deed language requiring the Melendy tract to be held in trust, to be forever kept as a public park or pleasure ground. In support of this argument, CLF asserts that the probate court erroneously considered extrinsic evidence in order to determine Melendy's intent. Alternatively, CLF argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that Melendy intended the property to be used as a state reservation.
"It is well established in this jurisdiction that our courts have shown a signal regard for the intention of a settlor of a trust." Indian Head Nat'l Bank v. Brown , 123 N.H. 87, 91, 455 A.2d 1056 (1983) ( ). In determining the settlor's intent, courts should look to the terms of the trust. See Bartlett v. Dumaine , 128 N.H. 497, 504, 523 A.2d 1 (1986). Where a court is construing an inter vivos trust evidenced by a written instrument, "the terms of the trust are determined by the provisions of the instrument as interpreted in the light of all the circumstances and other competent evidence of the intention of the settlor to the trust." Id. at 505, 523 A.2d 1 ( ). In ascertaining the settlor's intent, extrinsic evidence may not be used to vary or contradict the express terms of the trust. See id. Extrinsic evidence may, however, be considered whenever the language is ambiguous. See id.
The probate court determined, The probate court also determined that it is unclear what Melendy intended to convey in using the term "public park or pleasure ground for public use." In order to ascertain Melendy's intent in using this term, the probate court looked beyond the four corners of the deed and relied upon various newspaper accounts and legislation surrounding the development of the park. Because the settlor's intent in using the term "public park or pleasure ground for public use" is ambiguous, the probate court's reliance upon extrinsic evidence was proper.
CLF next argues that the record lacks sufficient evidence to support the probate court's determination that by using the term ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kelleher v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co.
...has not yet been adopted as part of New Hampshire common law. While we previously considered this doctrine in In re Pack Monadnock , 147 N.H. 419, 790 A.2d 786 (2002), we had no need to decide whether or not to adopt it based upon the facts and circumstances of that case. In re Pack Monadno......
-
Kelleher v. Marvin Lumber and Cedar Co.
...has not yet been adopted as part of New Hampshire common law. While we previously considered this doctrine in In re Pack Monadnock, 147 N.H. 419, 790 A.2d 786 (2002), we had no need to decide whether or not to adopt it based upon the facts and circumstances of that case. In re Pack Monadnoc......
-
Hodges v. Johnson
...that we interpret provisions of the trusts at issue. "The interpretation of a trust is a question of law." In re Pack Monadnock, 147 N.H. 419, 423, 790 A.2d 786 (2002). "The rules of construction that apply to the interpretation of and disposition of property by will also apply as appropria......
-
Cohoon v. IDM Software, Inc.
...in one phase of a case on an argument and then relying on a contradictory argument to prevail in another phase." In re Pack Monadnock, 147 N.H. 419, 425–26, 790 A.2d 786 (2002) (quotation omitted); see Kelleher v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co., 152 N.H. 813, 848, 891 A.2d 477, 2005 WL 3429739 (......