Red Hill Outing Club v. Hammond - 143 N.H. 284, 722 A.2d 501 (1998)

Rule:

When it is a condition subsequent that must be construed, the rule of strict construction operates to confine the determination of intent to the face of the deed and resolve all ambiguities against forfeiture. 

Facts:

David and Elizabeth Hammond and their son, Robert Hammond deeded a piece of land to Red Hill Outing Club (club) subject to a condition subsequent that the club use the land as a ski slope. The Hammonds filed a notice of re-entry and possession. They claimed that the club had breached the condition subsequent when it failed to use the land as a ski slope for two consecutive years. The trial court found that the club had not substantially breached the condition subsequent.

Issue:

Did the trial court err when it construed the club’s obligation as limited to maintaining and making the hill available as a ski area?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed. The court stated that when a condition subsequent was to be construed, the rule of strict construction operated to confine the determination of intent to the face of the deed and resolve all ambiguities against forfeiture. The court held, therefore, that the trial court did not err when it construed the club’s obligation as limited to maintaining and making the hill available as a ski area. The court held that the trial court was not required to import meanings not apparent on the face of the deed, such as obligations to provide a rope tow or ski instruction.