Street Address vs Deed Reference in a Legal Description: How New Hampshire Courts Resolve This Ambiguity

A recorded instrument can point to two different parcels, even when everyone believes they know which land is involved. When a street address conflicts with a book and page reference in the legal description, the problem is not a clerical nuisance but a genuine ambiguity with real consequences for ownership, foreclosure, and title. A recent New Hampshire Supreme Court order shows how New Hampshire courts approach that problem and why intent ultimately matters.

Background

Leslie and Nathalie Turner owned a parcel of land in New Durham identified as Lot 6C on the tax map with a street address of 80 Old Route 11, later changed to 80 Tash Road.  A house is located on that parcel.

In 2004, the State of New Hampshire conveyed to Leslie Turner a separate 0.23-acre parcel by quitclaim deed. The parties referred to this parcel as the “sliver.” It lay on Route 11 and was physically separate from Lot 6C. The deed for the sliver was recorded at Book 3051, Page 769. The sliver later was added to other land apparently owned by Mr. Turner and the combined parcels became “Lot 7.”  I.e., Lot 7 includes the sliver.

In 2006, the Turners executed a mortgage in favor of TD Bank to secure a $100,000 home equity line of credit. The mortgage described the pledged real estate as follows: “That certain piece or parcel of land, and the buildings and improvements thereon, known as 80 Old Route 11, in the town of New Durham . . . and being more particularly described in a deed recorded in Book 3051, Page 769.”

In 2017, TD Bank recorded a “corrective mortgage” that replaced the original description with a metes and bounds description of Lot 6C. The bank did so without notice to the Turners or their counsel.

After both Leslie and Nathalie Turner died, their daughter, Catherine Turner, became trustee of the Leslie Turner Trust and owner of Lot 6C. In early 2023, TD Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings on Lot 6C. Catherine Turner then filed the present action to enjoin the foreclosure and quiet title.

Superior Court

The superior court addressed two questions. First, it asked whether the 2006 mortgage adequately described Lot 6C as the encumbered property. Second, it asked whether TD Bank’s 2017 corrective mortgage was valid.

The court answered both questions in the negative. It ruled that the original mortgage, by its express reference to Book 3051, Page 769, encumbered only the sliver. The court held that the conflicting street address did not override the deed reference. Although the court acknowledged evidence suggesting the parties may have intended to encumber Lot 6C, it concluded that intent could not alter the express description.

The court further ruled that the 2017 corrective mortgage was invalid because TD Bank recorded it unilaterally, without the mortgagors’ consent and while other litigation between the parties was pending.

Based on those rulings, the court enjoined the foreclosure and quieted title to Lot 6C in favor of Catherine Turner, free and clear of TD Bank’s interest.

Supreme Court

TD Bank appealed. It argued that the superior court misapplied the law by concluding, as a matter of law, that the deed reference to the sliver controlled over the conflicting street address. Turner argued that more particular language (the deed reference) controlled over the general language of the street address.

The Supreme Court rejected both approaches. It held that conflicting property descriptions in a mortgage create an ambiguity. When such an ambiguity exists, a court may consider extrinsic evidence to determine the parties’ intent.

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the matter back to the superior court. It directed the superior court to determine, based on extrinsic evidence and surrounding circumstances, what property the parties intended to encumber in 2006.

Turner v. TD Bank, N.A., No. 2024-0358 (N.H. Dec. 30, 2025) (order).  (Because the Court issued an “order” rather than an “opinion,” the ruling has no precedential authority over other cases, but it may provide guidance on how New Hampshire courts may approach similar issues in the future.)

For assistance with real estate or civil litigation, please contact Alfano Law at (603) 856-8411 or by filling out our Contact Form.  The firm offers free or low-cost initial consultations for most matters.