Cited by

Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 704 (2004) (attorney’s fees); Van Der Stok v. Van Voorhees, 151 N.H. 679, 686 (2005) (costs).

At issue in this appeal is the interpretation of a deeded easement granting Lot 1, or the “dominant estate,” the non-possessory right to use a portion of Lot 2, the “servient estate.” Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 698 (2004).

The trial court reasoned that, “[h]ad the parties intended to allow the grantees to use the easement to access areas beyond the conveyed premises, i.e. newly-acquired tracts in the future, they could have used words to that effect.” See Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 701 (2004) (deed provided that the scope of the easement was “for the benefit of any and all property presently or hereinafter owned, occupied or used by Grantee”).

Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 703-04 (2004) (determining that the language of an easement deed prohibited the town from using the easement beyond its original intent).

Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 704 (2004).

in which a family lakefront camp was passed down from parents to siblings with the intent of continued common usage of the property.” Therefore, the court found that “the language [in the deeds] referring to ‘roads’ as ‘presently used’ must refer to the pre-existing practice of the family using the pathways to access the cabins and the waterfront on lot [8].” See generally Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 702 (2004) (“We will not overturn the factual findings of the trial court, particularly

Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 704-05 (2004).

Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 703, 846 A.2d 535 (2004) (observing that, in order to determine the scope of an easement, we consider the parties' intent in light of the surrounding circumstances at the time the easement was granted).

Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 698 (2004).

Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 702 (2004).

However, in Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694 (2004), we clarified that our holding in Burrows “did not establish a per se rule that entitles all successful plaintiffs in inverse condemnation cases to recover attorney’s fees and costs.” Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 704 (2004).

To the contrary, as we explained in our 2011 decision, when determining the scope of an easement created by written conveyance, “[o]ur task is to determine the parties’ intent in light of the surrounding circumstances at the time the easement was granted.” Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 701 (2004); see Bruce & Ely, supra § 10:8, at 10-18 (explaining that “[w]hen an easement purpose provision is ambiguous, courts examine the surrounding circumstances to ascertain the parties’ intent”).

including the right to make improvements that are reasonably necessary to enjoy the easement,” Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 701 (2004), such implication can be limited by the terms of an agreement.

Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 701 (2004).

Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 701 (2004).

As the Micheles point out, we have previously noted that an “easement is a nonpossessory right to the use of another’s land.” Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 698 (2004).

Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 702 (2004).

Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 698-99 (2004) (contrasting an appurtenant easement, which creates both 7 dominant and servient estate, with an easement in gross, which names a servient estate, but no dominant estate, because “the easement benefits its holder whether or not the holder owns or possesses ot

If there is some support in the record for the trial court’s determination, we will uphold it.” Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 704 (2004) (quotation omitted).

Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 698 (2004).

Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 704 (2004).

Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 704, 846 A.2d 535 (2004).

Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 701 (2004).

Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 701 (2004).

Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 701 (2004).

Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 704 (2004).

Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 698, 846 A.2d 535 (2004).

Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 698 (2004).

Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 701 (2004).

“We review the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard, giving deference to the trial court’s decision.” Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 704 (2004).

when they are supported by the evidence.” Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 702 (2004).

“To be reversible on appeal, the discretion must have been exercised for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable to the prejudice of the objecting party.” Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 150 N.H. 694, 704 (2004) (quotation omitted).