## Facts

- Post and Beam Equities Group, L.L.C. and Post and Beam of Mt. Snow, L.L.C. (P&B) owned two adjacent parcels in West Dover, Vermont.
- **Parcel 1** contained two restaurants and a parking lot; it could be accessed from Route 100 and from Sunne Village Lane, with Sunne Village Lane functioning as the primary access point.
- **Parcel 2** contained additional parking and was bounded by Sunne Village Lane; Parcel 2 lay within the Sunne Village Development residential subdivision.
- The subdivision was governed by the Sunne Village Development Property Owners Association (POA) and a recorded declaration of covenants.
- The covenants granted subdivision landowners a “perpetual right of way and easement” over Sunne Village Lane; the language did not expressly authorize commercial use and did not expressly restrict the easement to residential use.
- Parcel 1 was not part of the subdivision and was not directly subject to the declaration of covenants.
- P&B and its predecessors had used Sunne Village Lane in connection with restaurant operations for decades (beginning in the 1970s), including customer access to the restaurants and parking.
- The POA initially agreed orally that P&B could close the Route 100 entrance and use Sunne Village Lane as the exclusive access route, but the POA later changed course.
- The POA asserted the easement was intended for residential subdivision purposes and demanded that any continued access for the restaurants occur only by a revocable license conditioned on P&B giving up any claimed easement right for commercial access.
- P&B refused. The POA then placed boulders and erected signs indicating the road was private and for residents only, restricting or blocking customer access.
- P&B sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief concerning access rights and sought damages, alleging the obstruction harmed business operations.
- After a bench trial, the superior court (1) construed the covenants as creating an easement appurtenant benefiting Parcel 2 but not Parcel 1, (2) concluded the claimed commercial use exceeded the covenants-based easement as construed, (3) nonetheless found P&B had acquired a **prescriptive easement** for commercial access based on long and continuous use, and (4) found the POA’s obstruction constituted a **private nuisance**, awarding compensatory damages (including lost profits), punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.
- The POA appealed the nuisance and damages awards; P&B cross-appealed the limitation placed on the covenants-based easement.

## Issues

1. Whether the covenants-based easement over Sunne Village Lane appurtenant to Parcel 2 permitted use for restaurant-related commercial access benefiting Parcel 1.
2. Whether the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that P&B obtained a prescriptive easement allowing commercial access over Sunne Village Lane.
3. Whether the POA’s placement of barriers and “residents only” signage substantially and unreasonably interfered with P&B’s use and enjoyment of its property so as to constitute a private nuisance.
4. Whether the compensatory damages award, including lost profits, was supported by evidence proving damages with reasonable certainty.
5. Whether punitive damages and attorney’s fees were properly awarded based on the POA’s conduct and applicable standards.

## Decision

- The Court **affirmed** the trial court’s construction limiting the **covenants-based easement** to Parcel 2 and rejecting P&B’s attempt to use that deeded easement theory to justify the full scope of restaurant-related access to Parcel 1.
- The Court **affirmed** the finding that P&B had a **prescriptive easement** for commercial access over Sunne Village Lane based on decades of open, notorious, continuous, and adverse use.
- The Court **affirmed** the finding of **private nuisance** arising from the POA’s obstruction and restrictive signage that interfered with established access and harmed P&B’s use of its property.
- The Court **reversed/vacated** the **compensatory damages** award (including lost-profit damages) because the proof did not meet Vermont’s reasonable-certainty requirement and was too speculative.
- The Court **affirmed** the awards of **punitive damages** and **attorney’s fees**, finding no basis to disturb the trial court’s determinations given the nature of the POA’s conduct and the record.

## Legal Principles

- An easement created by recorded covenants is interpreted in context and is limited to uses reasonably contemplated at the time of creation; a right-of-way granted to subdivision lot owners may be construed as appurtenant to the subdivision lots and not automatically extend to benefit separate, non-subdivision land.
- Even when easement language is general, an easement holder may not impose a use that materially increases the burden on the servient estate beyond what the grant reasonably contemplated.
- A prescriptive easement may arise when use of another’s land is open, notorious, continuous, and adverse for the statutory period; long-standing roadway use for access can establish a prescriptive right even if written easement theories do not.
- A private nuisance is a substantial and unreasonable interference with another’s use and enjoyment of land; deliberate obstruction of an established access route can satisfy that standard when it foreseeably disrupts lawful use and business operations.
- Compensatory damages, including lost profits, must be proven with reasonable certainty; awards based on conjecture or insufficient financial proof must be set aside.
- Punitive damages may be awarded for conduct showing malice or reckless disregard of another’s rights; attorney’s fees may be awarded where authorized and supported by findings and the record, and such awards are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Vermont Supreme Court held that the subdivision covenants created an easement benefiting only the parcel within the subdivision and did not, by itself, authorize the full scope of restaurant-related access to the adjoining non-subdivision parcel, but it upheld a prescriptive easement allowing commercial access based on decades of use. The Court also upheld nuisance liability for the POA’s barriers and signage and affirmed punitive damages and attorney’s fees, while vacating compensatory (lost-profit) damages as insufficiently proven.


Post and Beam Equities Group, L.L.C. v. Sunne Village Development Property Owners Association, 124 A.3d 454 (2015)