deed is ambiguous as to what the parties intended, so we look to extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intentions and the circumstances surrounding the conveyance. See Ettinger, 166 N.H. at 450. Such evidence shows that the parties agreed to an easement, and that it was not unilaterally created. As the trial court noted, the Horgans and Caligaris were consistent in their testimony that the Horgans knew of the easement before they purchased Lot 17. Because Lot 17 was the first property sold in the development, the circumstances were such that not all details about the property or the community had been finalized. Caligaris stated that the deed’s language acted as a “catch-all” that allowed them to precisely define the easement later. Cf. Duxbary-Fox v. Shakhnovich, 159 N.H. 275, 282 (2009) (<HOLDING>). The conduct of the parties also points to an
recognizing that where the location of a deeded right of way is uncertain it may be clarified by the agreement of subsequent owners holding that subsequent property owners were bound by prior owners agreement to restrict building density and preserve certain portions of land as a condition of the original zoning approval recognizing that the right of redemption is one of the most important rights provided by the states to owners of real property holding that a settlement payment made when the law was uncertain cannot be successfully attacked on the basis of any subsequent resolution of the uncertainty holding that the district court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant when the site of a copyright owners alleged injury is the location of the copyright owner