Almeder v. Town of Kennebunkport
106 A.3d 1099
Me.2014Background
- Goose Rocks Beach (two miles) in Kennebunkport consists of multiple contiguous parcels owned by numerous private owners, the Town, and a conservation trust; dispute concerns public use of both dry and intertidal sand.
- Twenty-nine beachfront owners (Beachfront Owners) sued to quiet title and to declare their exclusive rights to sand down to mean low-water, subject only to historic colonial rights; Town and others counterclaimed asserting public rights and ownership claims. The State intervened limited to protecting public trust interests in the intertidal zone.
- The Superior Court conducted a bifurcated trial; after the first phase it found (1) a public prescriptive easement and an easement by custom across the entire beach (wet and dry sand), and (2) under the public trust doctrine the public has rights to cross the intertidal zone for certain "ocean-based" waterborne activities but not for ordinary beach uses like walking or swimming.
- The court allowed roughly 200 nearby (Backlot) owners to intervene; it entered partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) on the use claims, and the Beachfront Owners appealed while the State cross-appealed the scope of public-trust activities.
- The Supreme Judicial Court vacated: (a) the Backlot Owners’ intervention (they lacked Rule 24 standing), (b) the prescriptive-easement and easement-by-custom awards (easement by custom not recognized in Maine; prescriptive award lacked parcel-by-parcel findings), and (c) the public-trust declaration as premature—remanding for further proceedings including parcel-specific analysis and resolution of remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Almeder et al.) | Defendant's Argument (Town/State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention by Backlot Owners | Backlot Owners had practical, distinct interests from general public and thus could intervene. | Their interests were no different than public rights; intervention unnecessary and expanded litigation. | Vacated intervention: Backlot Owners failed to satisfy Rule 24 (no distinct parcel-specific interest; public rights already represented by Town). |
| Prescriptive easement over entire beach (wet and dry sand) | Public (and Town/Backlot) had open, continuous, long-term adverse use establishing prescriptive rights across the whole beach. | Any prescriptive right must be proven parcel-by-parcel; Town argued broader findings were sufficient. | Vacated prescriptive easement: trial court failed to make parcel-by-parcel findings; remand for parcel-specific analysis using existing record (Town may seek reanalysis). |
| Burden/adversity and presumption of permission for public recreational uses | Public use was long-standing and therefore adverse; no permissive use presumption defeats claim. | Public-rec recreational use is subject to presumption of permission; claimant must prove adversity. | Court reaffirmed presumption of permission for public recreational use; claimant must prove adversity on remand for each parcel. |
| Easement by custom | Custom supported a public right by immemorial usage across the beach. | Easement by custom is not a viable doctrine in Maine/US and should not be applied. | Vacated: Maine does not recognize easement by custom as a basis for creating public access. |
| Public trust rights in intertidal zone and scope of activities | Beachfront Owners argued limited public trust rights; State argued broader ocean-based uses allowed. | State advanced public trust protection for fishing, fowling, navigation and broad "ocean-based" activities. | Public-trust ruling was premature on these pleadings; remanded and not reviewed—trial court had not finally decided declaratory claim and State had not brought its own claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marquis v. Town of Kennebunk, 36 A.3d 861 (Me. 2011) (factors for Rule 54(b) final-judgment discretion)
- Lyons v. Baptist Sch. of Christian Training, 804 A.2d 364 (Me. 2002) (presumption that public recreational use is permissive; burden to prove adversity for public prescriptive claims)
- Androkites v. White, 10 A.3d 677 (Me. 2010) (elements and proof required for prescriptive easement)
- Bell v. Town of Wells, 557 A.2d 168 (Me. 1989) (public trust doctrine: intertidal land subject to public rights to fish, fowl, navigate)
- D’Angelo v. McNutt, 868 A.2d 239 (Me. 2005) (adverse-possession analysis and limits of inferring possession over an entire parcel)
- Stickney v. City of Saco, 770 A.2d 592 (Me. 2001) (easement basics and methods of creation)