Sitterly v. Matthews

• Decision Date: 07 March 2000
• Docket Number: No. 19,577.,19,577.
• Citation: 2 P.3d 871,129 N.M. 134,2000 NMCA 37
• Parties: Rebecca SITTERLY, as Conservator for Emily Seten, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Muriel T. MATTHEWS, as Trustee for the Muriel T. Matthews Trust, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

2 P.3d 871

129 N.M. 134

2000 NMCA 37

Rebecca SITTERLY, as Conservator for Emily Seten, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Muriel T. MATTHEWS, as Trustee for the Muriel T. Matthews Trust, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant.

No. 19,577.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

March 7, 2000.

Certiorari Denied April 27, 2000.

Kim E. Kaufman, Rebecca Sitterly, Albuquerque, for Appellee.

Peter H. Johnstone, Law Office of Peter H. Johnstone, Albuquerque, for Appellant.

Certiorari Denied, No. 26,258, April 27, 2000.

OPINION

PICKARD, Chief Judge.

{1} Rebecca Sitterly (Sitterly), as conservator for Emily Seten (Seten), filed suit against Muriel T. Matthews (Matthews), as Trustee for the Muriel T. Matthews Trust (Trust), to vacate an easement on Seten's property that ran in favor of the Trust's property (Matthews Property). At trial, Sitterly argued the easement for ingress and egress should be vacated because (1) the purpose for the easement ceased to exist when the Trust obtained another means of accessing the Matthews Property and (2) the Trust abandoned the easement not only by failing to use it, but also by erecting, or allowing Seten to erect, a fence that made it impossible to use.

{2} Matthews counterclaimed that Sitterly, by filing suit against her, was in breach of contract because Matthews and Seten had previously executed an agreement whereby each party allegedly agreed to not sue the other over any dispute concerning their respective properties. On the easement issues, Matthews argued that (1) the cessation of purpose doctrine does not apply in this case because the easement can still be used for the purpose of ingress and egress and (2) the easement has not been abandoned, but merely neglected or temporarily suspended.

{3} The trial court denied Matthews' counterclaim on the ground that the parties did not intend to bar this lawsuit, which involves an easement dispute, by agreeing to resolve the prior dispute, which involved a property transfer allegedly effectuated by fraud and undue influence. The trial court terminated the easement on both grounds set forth in Sitterly's complaint. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

{4} The property at issue (Nuanes Property) originally belonged to the Nuanes family. The Nuanes Property was bounded on its north, east, and south sides by other residences, and it was bounded on its west side by a public street (San Pasquale). At some point, the Nuanes family split its property into a north parcel (now the Matthews Property) and a south parcel (now the Seten Property), both of which contained houses occupied by Nuanes family members. The house fronts were located very close to San Pasquale, so the Nuaneses had to park their vehicles in the backyards of their respective parcels. The diagram below shows the location of the properties.

{5} At the time when the Nuanes family split their property into two parcels, the backyard to the north parcel could only be accessed from San Pasquale. The San Pasquale access-way required the north parcel's owners to travel along the south side of the residence on the south parcel, across the backyard of the south parcel, and into the backyard of the north parcel (see diagram). Although the San Pasquale route was inconvenient, the Nuanes family used it to access the backyard of its north parcel as a matter of necessity.

{6} In the 1940s, the Love family obtained the south parcel by tax deed. The tax deed did not expressly reserve an easement for ingress and egress across the south parcel, but the Nuaneses continued to use the San Pasquale route to access the north parcel.

{7} In 1961, the Love family transferred the south parcel to Seten's trustee. The deed reserved a 12-foot easement across the south parcel for ingress and egress for the benefit of the owners of the north parcel who were still the Nuanes family. In furtherance of this transfer, the Love family brought suit against the Nuanes family and others to vacate any existing easement on the south parcel.

{8} In 1962, the trial court entered an amended and modified final decree in which it imposed a 12-foot easement, for ingress and egress, in favor of the Nuanes family. Four years later, the Nuanes family brought a quiet title suit against several parties, including Seten's trustee. The district court affirmed the decree it had entered in the 1961 Love lawsuit.

{9} In 1988, Seten, who was 87 years old and of questionable competence, transferred the Seten Property to a person who two years later conveyed it to the Trust. In August 1990, the Trust purchased the Matthews Property for the purpose of converting the residence located on it into apartments. One month later, the Trust purchased the property to the east side of the Matthews Property (19th Street Property) for the purpose of providing its apartment tenants with easier, safer, and more convenient access to the Matthews Property. After the Trust purchased the 19th Street Property, the Matthewses and their tenants exclusively used the 19th Street access-way for ingress and egress to the backyard of the Matthews Property.

{10} In late 1991 or early 1992, Muriel Matthews erected, or permitted Seten to erect, a fence between the Matthews Property and the Seten Property. The fence completely blocked the easement, making it impossible for vehicles to ingress and egress from the Seten Property to the rear of the Matthews Property. At the time the fence was erected, the easement had no longer been needed or used for more than one year because of the more convenient, less circuitous route provided by the 19th Street access-way.

{11} In 1994, the Trust transferred the Seten Property by deed to another trust. Later that year, a conservator was appointed for Seten, and he filed suit on Seten's behalf against various Matthews entities in order to cancel Seten's transfer to the Trust on the grounds that it was procured by fraud and undue influence. This lawsuit was settled (1995 Agreement) three months later. Under the terms of the 1995 Agreement, the Seten Property was returned to Seten. The signatories to the 1995 Agreement specifically and mutually released each other from any claims which have or may develop "from the facts or issues involved in this lawsuit." Sitterly acted as the conservator's legal counsel in this matter.

{12} In 1996, Sitterly was appointed to serve as Seten's conservator at a conservatorship proceeding. In 1997, Sitterly filed suit in order to extinguish the easement because it reduced the value of the Seten Property.

DISCUSSION

I. PRIOR RELEASE

{13} At trial, Matthews asked the trial court to dismiss Sitterly's complaint on the ground that by signing the 1995 Agreement, Matthews and Seten had agreed to not sue each other over any dispute concerning their respective properties. The trial court denied Matthews' request on the ground that the parties did not intend to bar the instant lawsuit, which involves an easement dispute, by agreeing to resolve the earlier dispute, which involved a property transfer allegedly effectuated by fraud and undue influence.

{14} On appeal, Matthews claims the 1995 Agreement is unambiguous and thus argues that the trial court erred when it looked beyond the four corners of the contract and considered the intentions of the parties. Alternatively, Matthews claims that if the 1995 Agreement was ambiguous, the trial court erred by concluding that the parties, in signing the 1995 Agreement, did not intend to bar the instant lawsuit.

{15} We must interpret the 1995 Agreement, along with its release provisions, in the same way that we would interpret any other contract. See Ratzlaff v. Seven Bar Flying Serv., Inc., 98 N.M. 159, 162, 646 P.2d 586, 589 (Ct.App.1982). Whether a contractual provision is ambiguous is a question of law, which we review de novo on appeal. See Mark V, Inc. v. Mellekas, 114 N.M. 778, 782, 845 P.2d 1232, 1236 (1993).

{16} In the case at bar, the 1995 Agreement is very broadly worded in that it purports to release the parties from liability for a vast range of claims and causes of action. However, it also limits its application to the claims contained in or developed from the facts or issues involved in that lawsuit. It is not clear from the 1995 Agreement just what facts and issues were involved in that lawsuit. As a result, the scope of the release created by the 1995 Agreement is ambiguous. See id. at 781-82, 845 P.2d at 1235-36 (concluding that ambiguity exists when a contract is reasonably susceptible of different constructions). In order to resolve this ambiguity, a court may look not only to the language contained in the 1995 Agreement, but also to the circumstances surrounding its execution in an attempt to determine as a factual matter the intent of the parties. See id.

{17} At trial, Sitterly testified that she did not intend to address in the 1995 Agreement the easement issue presented by her complaint in this lawsuit because she sought only the cancellation of Seten's transfer in the 1995 Agreement and nothing more. According to Sitterly, the earlier lawsuit sought relief on the narrow ground that Leone Matthews had obtained the Seten Property through fraud and undue influence. According to Matthews' brief, "[r]ather than litigate the matter, the parties agreed to settle the litigation by Leone Matthews returning the property deeded to her by Emily Seten to the Conservator...."

{18} Sitterly acknowledged before the trial court that she referred to the easement in the 1995 Agreement, but she testified that she did so only for the purpose of ensuring that Seten received the same description of real property that Leone Matthews had taken in the Seten Transfer. Sitterly also testified that the easement was so far removed from her consideration at the time she drafted the 1995 Agreement that she did not even know where the easement was located. The trial court found that her lack of knowledge was reasonable because the easement was not clearly described in the...