## Facts

- David Hammond bought land known as Red Hill in Moultonboro, New Hampshire, cleared it for use as a ski slope, installed a rope tow, and helped form Red Hill Outing Club (a nonprofit) to operate the slope.
- From 1969 to 1979, the club leased Red Hill, operated the rope tow, and provided free ski lessons to club members and Moultonboro residents.
- In 1979, David and Elizabeth Hammond conveyed Red Hill to the club by quitclaim deed for nominal consideration, subject to a condition subsequent requiring the premises to be “maintained and made available to residents of Moultonboro as a ski slope” per the club’s then-existing by-laws.
- The deed provided that if the club failed to provide “such skiing facilities” to Moultonboro residents for two consecutive years (absent an act of God such as inadequate snowfall), the grantors would have a right of re-entry and possession.
- After 1988, use of the slope declined due to competition from other ski areas, changing family interests, variable snowfall, and reduced club leadership.
- The club stopped offering free ski lessons after the 1988–1989 winter, did not obtain a rope tow permit for the 1992–1993 and 1993–1994 seasons, and closed the hill to all skiing during the winter of 1993–1994.
- In October 1994, the Hammonds recorded a notice of re-entry and possession, asserting breach of the condition for failure to provide skiing facilities for two consecutive years.

## Issues

1. Whether the deed’s condition subsequent must be strictly construed, and what “maintained and made available … as a ski slope” and “such skiing facilities” require.
2. Whether extrinsic evidence of the grantors’ intent may be used to broaden the condition, and whether any ambiguity should be resolved to support forfeiture.
3. Whether the club’s reduced operations (including lack of rope tow permits and one season of closure) constituted a substantial breach triggering the right of re-entry.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed the trial court’s judgment for the club.
- The condition subsequent was strictly construed because such conditions are disfavored and may cause forfeiture.
- The deed did not clearly require the club to operate a rope tow or provide ski lessons; it required maintaining the premises and making it available as a ski slope.
- Any trial-court error in construing ambiguity against the grantors was harmless because strict construction and the anti-forfeiture rule controlled the outcome.
- The club did not substantially breach the condition; the Hammonds therefore had no right of re-entry, and the club retained title.

## Legal Principles

- Conditions subsequent in deeds are strictly construed because they tend to destroy estates; doubts are resolved against forfeiture.
- Extrinsic evidence may not be used to expand the scope of a condition subsequent so as to create or enlarge a forfeiture beyond the deed’s clear terms.
- A right of re-entry for breach of a condition subsequent requires a clear showing of breach as defined by the deed; courts will not imply additional operational duties (e.g., specific amenities or programs) not expressly stated.

## Conclusion

The court held that the deed’s condition subsequent required only that the property be maintained and made available to town residents as a ski slope, not that the club operate particular equipment or services, and it refused forfeiture absent a clear, substantial breach meeting the condition’s explicit terms.


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