Androkites v. White, 10 A.3d 677

White and Malcolm White own the White Property; Androkites owns the adjacent Androkites Property, with Shore Path crossing all three parcels.
Shore Path has been used since around 1962 by White and family members to access the beach, moorings, and other parcels; no permission was sought or obtained from the current property owners during that period.
A 2000 release deed related to the Androkites property expressly reserved or excepted the Shore Path, but did not create any easement in favor of the Whites beyond existing recorded rights.
In 2006 Androkites filed a lawsuit for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to stop the Whites from using the Shore Path; the Whites counterclaimed for a prescriptive easement.
The trial court denied summary judgment, conducted a nonjury trial, and entered judgment for Androkites on the declaratory judgment and trespass claims, with nominal relief on trespass.
The Whites appealed, arguing the court applied Hamlin v. Niedner to shift the burden of proving adversity to family members; the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether use of the Shore Path by Whites was under a claim of right adverse to the owner	White family use presumed adverse due to long duration	Family relationship negates adversity; use was permissive	Whites did not prove adversity; prescriptive easement not established
Role of hostility/adversity in prescriptive easement between family members	Adversity element applies similarly to adverse possession	Adversity not required or should be treated differently within families	Hostility/adversity is required; burden remains on claimant in family contexts
Burden of proof for adversity when dominant and servient estates are within the same family	Presumption of adversity shifts burden to owner	Burden appropriately rests with claimant, given family ties and access to information	Burden remains on claimant to prove adversity; no presumption applies in this case

Hamlin v. Niedner, 2008 ME 130 (Me. 2008) (adverse possession framework informs hostility/adversity in prescriptive easements between family members)
Jordan v. Shea, 2002 ME 36 (Me. 2002) (elements of prescriptive easement; burden of proof; adverse claim and notice analyzed)
Stickney v. City of Saco, 2001 ME 69 (Me. 2001) (acquiescence and use; continuous use standard for prescriptive rights)
Lyons v. Baptist Sch. of Christian Training, 2002 ME 137 (Me. 2002) (presumption of adversity in prescriptive contexts noted)
Glidden v. Belden, 684 A.2d 1306 (Me. 1996) (hostility/adversity concepts in prescriptive use)