Sandy Valley Assocs. v. Sky Ranch Estates
| Decision Date | 10 December 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 33021.,33021. |
| Citation | 35 P.3d 964,117 Nev. 948 |
| Parties | SANDY VALLEY ASSOCIATES, A Nevada Limited Partnership, Appellant, v. SKY RANCH ESTATES OWNERS ASSOCIATION, A Nevada Nonprofit Corporation; Richard L. Clark, Willis Eichel, Carmen Eichel, Thomas Elliott, Nora Elliott, Dale Engel, Louise Engel, Edward Grimm, Christopher Hukill, Elaine Martin, Samuel K. McCauley, FE Nancy, Jordan McCauley, Paul Muskat, Robert Nead, Mary Nead, Robert Spurlock, Jan (Wilson) Spurlock, Harold Thompson, Barbara Thompson, Loyd Town, Alvin Glantz, Estelle Glantz, Elaine (Harkey) Clark, Clark County, Clark County Board of County Commissioners, Clark County Planning Commission, Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning, and Clark County District Attorney, Respondents. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Simon & Berman, Las Vegas, for Appellant.
Stewart L. Bell, District Attorney, and Mark E. Wood, Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondents Clark County and all county-affiliated respondents.
Kummer Kaempfer Bonner & Renshaw and John A. Curtas, Las Vegas; Deaner, Deaner, Scann, Malan & Larsen, Las Vegas, for Respondents Sky Ranch Estates Owners Association.
Before MAUPIN, C.J., YOUNG and BECKER, JJ.
This case involves a dispute between appellant Sandy Valley Associates (SVA), a developer, and respondents Sky Ranch Estates Owners Association, as well as the individually named homeowners, over the ownership of certain parcels of real property within a residential subdivision located outside of Las Vegas. The Association and the homeowners commenced the underlying action in this case to compel SVA to convey certain lots to the Association. Following a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of the Association and the homeowners, finding that the lots at issue were always intended to be a part of the landing strip and common areas owned by the Association. In post-trial proceedings, the district court awarded the Association and the homeowners attorney fees as damages.
On appeal, SVA contends that the district court erred by ordering the conveyance of the lots and landing strip to the Association and by awarding attorney fees as damages. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the district court's decision concerning the ownership of the lots and landing strip. However, we also conclude that the district court erred in awarding attorney fees as damages. We therefore affirm that portion of the district court's judgment that relates to property ownership and reverse that portion of the judgment that pertains to attorney fees.
In the late 1970s, SVA developed Sky Ranch Estates I and Sky Ranch Estates II, a remote, fly-in community located approximately fifty miles outside of Las Vegas in Sandy Valley. Sky Ranch Estates I and Sky Ranch Estates II occupy one-half of a quarter section of land with a single landing strip transecting the development from the northeast corner to the southwest corner. SVA created the Association to administer and maintain the common areas, and recorded a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC & Rs) in 1978, which required SVA to convey all "common properties" within Sky Ranch Estates, including the recreational areas, streets, landing strip, and all other areas not a part of the residential lots, to the Association.
SVA conveyed title to a landing strip and lots designated as "common areas" on the recorded final plat map within Sky Ranch Estates I to the Association. Later, although a declaration of annexation was executed in 1982 that annexed Sky Ranch Estates II to Sky Ranch Estates I, SVA did not convey title to the common area lots or the landing strip within Sky Ranch Estates II to the Association.
In 1992, the Association and the homeowners filed a complaint for declaratory relief, specific performance, breach of fiduciary duty, and enforcement of land use conditions against SVA, seeking to compel SVA to convey five common area lots within Sky Ranch Estates II, as well as a second landing strip, parallel to the first, on the easterly 150 feet of lot 39, to the Association.1 In its answer, SVA asserted that the plat maps were approved by the County Commissioners without reflecting changes made to the easterly half of lot 39 and that, instead of re-mapping the parcel, SVA modified the plans for the parcel by expressly reserving the easterly 150 feet of lot 39 in the CC & Rs, thereby preventing its use as a parallel landing strip. SVA also disputed that the five triangular lots designated in the Association's complaint were part of the common areas required to be conveyed to the Association.
At a two-day bench trial, the Association presented evidence that the designation "common area reserved for landing strip" on the plat map referred to the entire 300-foot width, including the easterly 150 feet of lot 39. The evidence included SVA's representation to the County Commissioners in its plat map for Sky Ranch Estates II that the easterly 150 feet of lot 39 would be a second, parallel landing strip, and that SVA did not express any intent to reserve the easterly 150 feet of lot 39 during the approval process before the County Commissioners. The Association also introduced evidence that a condition of the County Commissioners' approval of the final plat map for Sky Ranch Estates II was that the Association own and maintain the runways and taxiways. The homeowners' testimony indicated that SVA represented to them that the easterly 150 feet of lot 39 would be developed as a second landing strip, parallel to the runway occupying the westerly 150 feet of lot 39 and that, if the parallel landing strip was not developed, pilots would be forced to use a nearby unpaved Bureau of Land Management runway which, because of its location, frequently experiences cross winds, making plane operation difficult and dangerous.
The Association also presented evidence that the five triangular lots, initially designated as "rec[reational] areas" on the tentative plat map and as "open areas" on the final plat map, did not conform to applicable county codes for development due to their dimensions or size. Development was not feasible on two of the lots because, in addition to their dimensions, one contained a community well and the other was at the end of a landing strip. Witness testimony indicated that these five undevelopable lots had been reserved for badminton courts, tennis courts, and/or a swimming pool, and that these areas were intended to be part of the common areas to be conveyed to the Association under the CC & Rs.
The district court entered judgment for the Association, finding that the easterly 150 feet of lot 39 as well as the five triangular lots designated as "open areas" on the final plat map of Sky Ranch Estates II were always intended to be a part of the common areas owned by the Association, and ordered that title to the property be conveyed to the Association. In addition, based upon a post-trial motion, the district court concluded that the Association was entitled to attorney fees as damages resulting from its action to determine title to real property. Thereafter, the district court signed written findings of fact and conclusions of law reflecting its decision, and ordering SVA to pay the Association $74,567.00 in attorney fees as damages. SVA timely appealed.
SVA contends that the district court erred by granting the Association title to the easterly 150 feet of lot 39 within Sky Ranch Estates II, arguing that SVA is the legal owner of the property because SVA reserved title to the property in the amended CC & Rs.
When a contract is clear on its face, it will be construed from the written language and enforced as written.2 Parol evidence is not admissible to vary or contradict the clear and unambiguous terms of a written agreement. However, parol evidence is admissible to determine the true intent of the parties when a contract is ambiguous.3 Thus, the circumstances surrounding the execution of a contract and the subsequent acts or declarations of the parties may be considered to interpret unclear contractual provisions.4
In this case, the CC & Rs constituted a written contract to convey land, but the covenant "excepting the easterly 150 feet of the designated landing strip" created an ambiguity as to the identity of the designated landing strip in light of the recorded plat maps for the subdivision. These plat maps contained a designated landing strip 300 feet wide and were referenced in the CC & Rs. Thus, the district court properly considered parol evidence to resolve the ambiguity.
Additionally, this court will not set aside a district court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous or not supported by substantial evidence.5 The record reveals substantial evidence from which the district court could find that SVA intended to convey the easterly 150 feet of lot 39 to the Association. In particular, the Association presented various documents, including recorded tentative and final plat maps for Sky Ranch Estates and promotional materials, all of which depicted the entire width of lot 39 as a landing strip. Testimony from the individuals involved in the process of seeking approval of the subdivision before Clark County, including the engineer and a Clark County official, indicated that the County Commissioners conditioned approval of the final plat map upon the Association's ownership of the "common area reserved for a landing strip," including the easterly 150 feet of lot 39. The purchasers of residential lots also testified that SVA orally represented to them that the easterly 150 feet of lot 39 would be used as a parallel landing strip. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not clearly erroneous.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. Home Corp. v. Michael Ballesteros Trust
...subjects as indemnification, restrictions on resale or use, and dispute resolution. See Sandy Valley Assocs. v. Sky Ranch Estates Owners Ass'n , 117 Nev. 948, 954, 35 P.3d 964, 968 (2001), receded from on other grounds by Horgan v. Felton , 123 Nev. 577, 170 P.3d 982 (2007)("the CC&Rs const......
-
Shuette v. Beazer Homes Holdings Corp.
...40.655 indicates that the amount of attorney fees recoverable by prevailing claimants must be decided by the jury.86 In Sandy Valley Associates v. Sky Ranch Estates,87 after pointing out that attorney fees as "a cost of litigation" are recoverable only under an agreement, statute, or rule, ......
-
Thomas v. City of North Las Vegas
...as a condition precedent requires the award of a money judgment"), disapproved of on other grounds by Sandy Valley Assocs. v. Sky Ranch Estates, 117 Nev. 948, 35 P.3d 964 (2001). 26. 111 Nev. at 286, 890 P.2d at 775. 27. Bobby Berosini, Ltd. v. PETA, 114 Nev. 1348, 1356, 971 P.2d 383, 388 (......
-
Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc.
...(2000). 41. Shuette v. Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., 121 Nev. ___, ___, 124 P.3d 530, 547 (2005). 42. Sandy Valley Assocs. v. Sky Ranch Estates, 117 Nev. 948, 956, 35 P.3d 964, 969 (2001). 43. 121 Nev. ___, 124 P.3d 530. 44. Id. at ___, 124 P.3d at 548. 45. Id. 46. Id. at ___, 124 P.3d at 54......
-
Investigation and Evaluation
...and attorney’s fees that are damages, which may be recoverable. See Sandy Valley Associates v. Sky Ranch Estates Owners’ Association , 35 P.3d 964 (Nev. 2001). This means that costs and expenses of litigation should be treated as legal consequences of a wrongful act and, therefore, “damages......