Horse Pond Fish & Game Club, Inc. v. Cormier

New Hampshire Supreme Court · Property

Propertyrestraints on alienationcharitable corporationcharitable trustsummary judgmentmaterial factreasonable restraintsattorney general necessary party

Facts

The plaintiff club owned land known as the Horse Pond property and in 1958 caused the property to be conveyed back to itself subject to deed restrictions forbidding alienation unless there was a 100 percent vote of the club at a specially noticed meeting or the club was officially dissolved. In 1988 the club sought to exchange most of the property for other land and money, but defendant member William Cormier voted against the proposal, which blocked the transaction if the restriction was valid. The club then filed an equity action seeking a declaration that the restriction was void as an unreasonable restraint against alienation, while the parties disputed whether the club was a charitable entity. Before that issue was resolved, and while a motion to join the director of charitable trusts was pending, the trial court granted summary judgment for the club.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment declaring the deed restraint void when there was an unresolved factual issue as to whether the plaintiff was a charitable entity. If the plaintiff was charitable, that status could affect the legal validity of the restraint against alienation.

Rule

Summary judgment is proper only when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A fact is material if it affects the outcome of the litigation. The ordinary rule of reasonable restraints on alienation generally does not apply to a gift to a charitable trust or charitable corporation, and an express restraint against alienation in such a gift may be valid.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Cedar Run Archers Association owns wooded land outside Concord, New Hampshire. Its deed says the land may not be sold unless every voting member approves at a specially noticed meeting, and the association sues for summary judgment arguing the clause is an unreasonable restraint; an opposing member submits evidence that the association has long held itself out as operating exclusively for wildlife education and conservation and has filed papers with the state identifying itself as charitable.

Should the court grant summary judgment declaring the restraint void?

Explanation. Summary judgment is proper only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A fact is material if it can affect the outcome. Here, charitable status matters because the ordinary rule of reasonable restraints generally does not apply to gifts to charitable trusts or charitable corporations, and an express restraint against alienation may be valid if the owner is charitable. (Derived from Horse Pond Fish & Game Club, Inc. v. Cormier (n.d.).)