134 A.3d 857
Me.2016Background
- Oceanfront lots in Coopers Beach, Owls Head: Gravison lot (oceanfront), adjacent Titcomb and Edwards oceanfront lots; inland "neighboring property owners" claim easements based on historic Blackinton Plan (June 1882, recorded 1924).
- Blackinton Plan (recorded 1924) shows numbered lots, formal streets, and a curved dashed-line "perimeter path" along the shore that does not touch the high-water mark; some source deeds reference the plan.
- Chains of title: some source deeds (pre-record) reference the plan as laid out in June 1882; others (post-record) reference the plan as recorded. Many source deeds expressly grant "use of the beach for boating and bathing."
- Farber (lot 63) devised lot 63 to a land trust (CMLT) by will, but the deed of distribution (1998) described the seaward boundary at the high-water mark, excluding the intertidal area; the intertidal area passed to Bolan by remainder.
- Gravison sued to reform the deed to CMLT to include the intertidal area and sought declarations that neighbors had no beach or path rights; neighbors counterclaimed asserting deeded easements over the perimeter path and beach. Trial court denied reformation, found post-record owners had easements in the perimeter path (partially abandoned where Edwards house stands), and held most neighbors have recreational easements in the intertidal (beach) area.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Reformation of Farber deed to include intertidal beach | Gravison: deed mistakenly omitted the intertidal area; will shows intent to give Lot 63 (including intertidal) to CMLT; reform by mutual mistake | Bolan: deed unambiguous; no mutual mistake; extrinsic evidence inadmissible to vary clear deed | Reformation denied. Court properly admitted extrinsic evidence but found plaintiffs failed to prove mutual mistake by clear and convincing evidence and credited opposing testimony. |
| 2) Existence of easements in perimeter path for pre-record deed grantees | Gravison/Titcomb/Edwards: pre-record deed language grants "streets" and thus includes perimeter path | Neighbors (pre-record): perimeter path was part of original 1882 plan and so easement exists | Pre-record owners failed to prove the perimeter path appeared on original 1882 plan; no easement for pre-record grantees. |
| 3) Existence/scope of easements in perimeter path for post-record deed grantees | Neighbors (post-record): deeds granting "rights of way shown on plan" include the dotted perimeter path as a right of way and permit access to beach | Gravison/Titcomb/Edwards: dotted line not a formal way; even if path exists, limits prevent beach access; abandonment asserted | Post-record owners have easements over perimeter path as shown on recorded plan; scope limited to the path boundaries (no right to cross seaward of the path to reach the beach); part of the path covered by Edwards' house was abandoned. |
| 4) Existence and scope of deeded beach (intertidal) easements | Gravison: neighbors have no rights to the Gravison beach; or rights narrower than claimed | Neighbors: many source deeds expressly grant "use of the beach for boating and bathing" and thus cover intertidal area | All neighboring owners whose source deeds (pre-1927) granted "use of the beach for bathing and boating" that referenced the plan have easements in the intertidal area shown on the plan (but Bolan and Lawrence, whose rights derive solely from a 1934 deed, do not have rights in the Edwards intertidal). Rights limited to reasonable recreational activities related to bathing and boating. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sargent v. Coolidge, 433 A.2d 738 (Me.) (parol testimony admissible in equitable reformation actions)
- Jordan v. Shea, 791 A.2d 116 (Me. 2002) (elements and burden for deed reformation)
- Baillargeon v. Estate of Daigle, 8 A.3d 709 (Me. 2010) (clear-and-convincing standard for reformation findings)
- Gunzinger v. C & G Estates, Inc., 610 A.2d 735 (Me. 1992) (reformation for mutual mistake of fact)
- D'Alessandro v. Town of Harpswell, 48 A.3d 786 (Me. 2012) (implied easements from deeds that reference subdivision plans)
- Arnold v. Boulay, 83 A.2d 574 (Me.) (easements implied to secure benefits shown on plan)
- Chase v. Eastman, 563 A.2d 1099 (Me.) (abandonment inference from failure to object to permanent obstruction)
- Rotch v. Livingston, 40 A.426 (Me.) (easement enjoyment limited to dimensions shown)
- Canadian Nat’l Ry. v. Sprague, 609 A.2d 1175 (Me.) (standards for abandonment of easement)
- Stickney v. City of Saco, 770 A.2d 592 (Me. 2001) (easement termination methods and burden of proof)