Britton v. Donnell
12 A.3d 39
Me.2011Background
- Two adjacent shorefront landowners in York Harbor dispute Varrell Wharf’s impact on riparian rights.
- Britton and Donnell owned neighboring parcels with two Donnell wharves; Varrell Wharf extends across Britton frontage.
- Brittons contend Varrell Wharf injures their riparian rights and seeks relief under the Wharves and Weirs Act, 38 M.R.S. §1026.
- Donnells leased submerged land under Varrell Wharf; Brittons had not consented to the wharf’s continuation.
- Brittons previously prevailed on remand in Britton I that a remedy may lie under the Wharves and Weirs Act if injury is shown.
- On remand, trial court found no injury and denied remedies; the Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated and remanded for entry of judgment in Brittons’ favor with damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Varrell Wharf injure Brittons’ riparian rights under the Wharves and Weirs Act? | Brittons contend the wharf infringes their riparian rights by limiting access. | Donnells argue no injury to Brittons’ rights occurs given historical presence and access. | Yes; the wharf injures Brittons’ rights requiring remedy. |
| May Donnells maintain Varrell Wharf without violating the Wharves and Weirs Act if injury exists? | Consent not given; injury shown. | Wharf may be maintained with consent or absent injury. | Maintenance violates the Act where injury is shown. |
| How should damages under §1026 be calculated? | Damages accrue daily as ongoing offense. | Injury may be viewed as ongoing but damages limited. | Each offense constitutes a single offense for damages; award $50 plus interest and costs. |
| Can Donnells acquire Brittons’ riparian rights by prescription or abandonment? | No; prescription/abandonment cannot create a right to maintain a wharf inconsistent with the Act. | ||
| What are the remand directives regarding removal and judgment? | Remove 48 feet of Varrell Wharf; entry of judgment in Brittons’ favor; award damages and proceed accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Britton v. Dep't of Conservation, 2009 ME 60 (Me. 2009) (remand; injury inquiry under Wharves and Weirs Act; consent required if injury)
- Sawyer v. Beal, 97 Me. 356 (Me. 1903) (purpose of statute to protect existing riparian rights, not extend ownership)
- Donnell v. Joy, 85 Me. 118 (Me. 1892) (riparian rights; early recognition of remedies under statute)
- Great Cove Boat Club v. Bureau of Pub. Lands, 672 A.2d 91 (Me. 1996) (public trust doctrine; regulation of public rights in water)
- Bell v. Town of Wells (Bell II), 557 A.2d 168 (Me. 1989) (ownership of intertidal zone and public rights)
- Bell v. Town of Wells (Bell I), 510 A.2d 509 (Me. 1986) (intertidal zone ownership; public rights)