Beverly A. Gravison v. Calvert M. Fisher
134 A.3d 857
| Me. | 2016Background
- Gravison v. Fisher involves oceanfront lots in Coopers Beach, Owls Head, and a dispute over deed reformation of Farber’s estate to include intertidal beach,” with Bolan and Lawrence asserting riparian rights.”,
- The trial court denied the Gravison deed reformation and held that post-record owners have easements over a perimeter path, while pre-record owners lack such rights.
- The court also held that beach easements exist for neighboring owners, but limited to intertidal activities reasonably related to bathing and boating.
- Farber’s 1991 will devised land to CMLT (Coastal Mountains Land Trust) with a 1998 deed describing Lot 63, seaward boundary at high water mark, excluding intertidal area, creating potential misdescription.
- The appellate court later addressed extrinsic evidence, contract interpretation, and the scope of the perimeter path and beach easements across multiple chains of title.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deed reformation viability | Gravisons claim mutual mistake; deed should include intertidal area. | Coon’s deed to CMLT was unambiguous; no mutual mistake proven. | No reversible error; reformation denied. |
| Easements over the perimeter path | Pre-record owners hold rights via Blackinton Plan; post-record owners argue rights through Studley deed. | Post-record deeds grant rights of way; pre-record cannot prove path depicted in original plan. | Post-record easements exist; path rights limited to plan boundaries; abandonment partially acknowledged where Edwardses’ home sits. |
| Termination of perimeter path easements | Easements abandoned due to nonuse or acts contradicting rights. | Abandonment not proven for entire path; some areas remain usable. | Easements abandoned to Edwardses’ home area; otherwise remain in effect. |
| Beach easements—creation and scope | Neighboring owners hold beach rights proximately; Bolan/Lawrence claim riparian rights only via Studley. | Beach rights encumber Edwardses’ intertidal area under Blackinton Plan; Bolan/Lawrence lack beach rights post-1927. | Neighbors other than Bolan/Lawrence have beach easements; rights limited to recreational activities reasonably related to bathing/boating. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sargent v. Coolidge, 433 A.2d 738 (Me. 1981) (extrinsic evidence admissible to prove mutual mistake in deed reform)
- Baillargeon v. Estate of Daigle, 8 A.3d 709 (Me. 2010) (clear and convincing standard for mistake in deed reform)
- Jordan v. Shea, 791 A.2d 116 (Me. 2002) (reformation standard; fact-finder credibility and high probability review)
- Chesley v. Holmes, 40 Me. 536 (1855) (plan incorporation and deed construction rules)
- D’Alessandro v. Town of Harpswell, 48 A.3d 786 (Me. 2012) (implied easement from plan reference when conveying by plan)
- Rotch v. Livingston, 40 A. 426 (Me. 1898) (width-based easement extent limits use to plan-delineated area)