Cited by

Soukup v. Brooks, 159 N.H. 9, 17 (2009) (noting that where an easement plan was recorded and the deed “expressly convey[ed] an easement,” a valid easement existed); Close v. Fisette, 146 N.H. 480, 483-84 (2001) (explaining that an easement agreement granting access rights as shown on an easement plan signed by the parties and recorded constituted a valid easement even though the easement plan was not recorded).

Close v. Fisette, 146 N.H. 480, 483 (2001) (explaining that a decision rendered by a court without subject matter jurisdiction is void).

f we interpret the easements together, as explained above, the plain language of the buffer zone easement permits “landscaping.” It is not limited to “maintenance associated with the driveway.” Therefore, the primary question is whether the wall here constitutes “landscaping.” We interpret the meaning of “landscaping” based on the meaning that would be attached to it by reasonable persons.

Close v. Fisette, 146 N.H. 480, 483 (2001) (stating that decision rendered by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is void).

at 14; see also Close v. Fisette, 146 N.H. 480, 483-84 (2001).

Because this argument was first raised on appeal, we note that standing is a question of subject matter jurisdiction, Duncan v. State, 166 N.H. 630, 640 (2014), and that “[a] challenge to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time during the proceeding, including on appeal.” Close v. Fisette, 146 N.H. 480, 483 (2001).

We review the trial court’s interpretation de novo.

A party may challenge subject matter jurisdiction “at any time during the proceeding, including on appeal,” and may not waive subject matter jurisdiction.

A party may challenge subject matter jurisdiction “at any time during-the proceeding, including on appeal,” and may not waive it.

In Close v. Fisette, 146 N.H. 480, 483 (2001), we held that an “easement agreement coupled with [an] easement plan independently created an easement.” The easement agreement, signed by both the grantors and the grantees and recorded, granted the right to use a right of way shown as an existing easement on the easement plan.

See, e.g., Close v. Fisette, 146 N.H. 480, 483 (2001) (“A decision rendered by a court without subject matter jurisdiction is void.

Accordingly, they are waived.