Panos v. Olsen & Assocs. Constr., Inc. - 2005 UT App 446, 123 P.3d 816

Rule:

In interpreting the deed, it is a court's duty to construe a deed as it is written, and in the light of its own language and peculiar facts. As a result, where a deed is plain and unambiguous, parol evidence is not admissible to vary its terms. In respect to the rules of contract construction concerning property, courts will resolve all doubts in favor of the free and unrestricted use of property.

Facts:

Appellant Patrick Panos sold appellee Olsen and Associates Construction, Inc. a vacant lot in Sandy, Utah. At the time of the sale, the parties entered into a real estate purchase contract. The contract included addenda that detailed several additional terms and restrictions, including a prohibition against any building on the lot higher than thirty-two feet when measured from the road. Each party ordered a survey of the Olsen home to determine whether it was in compliance with the height restriction. The Palos survey indicated that the Olsen home was approximately 34.91 feet above the monument, in violation of the height restriction by 2.91 feet. On the other hand, the Olsen survey indicated that the Olsen home complied with the height restriction. Based on the Panos survey, appellant filed a complaint alleging breach of contract, seeking an injunction, and requesting a declaratory judgment. Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the merger doctrine applied to the deed and that the Olsen home was in compliance based on the Olsen survey. The trial court granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment and denied appellant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, ruling that the merger doctrine applied and that the Olsen home satisfied the height restriction specified in the deed. Appellant challenged the decision, arguing that the trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment. 

Issue:

Did the merger doctrine apply to the deed, thereby warranting the grant of summary judgment in favor of the appellee? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The appellate court held, as did the trial court, that the merger doctrine applied to the contract and the deed. Although the height restriction in the deed was broad in its application, it was not ambiguous. As a result, any point on the portion of the road lying west and adjacent to lot 29 could be used as the originating measuring point in satisfying the height restriction. The ambiguity and mutual mistake exceptions to the merger doctrine were inapplicable, and reformation was properly denied by the trial court.