129 A.3d 971
Me.2015Background
- Plaintiffs Darlene and Lewis Edwards own waterfront property at 70 Coopers Beach Road; defendants Blackman/Scotts own inland property at 34 Coopers Beach Road. A way and cul-de-sac cross part of the Edwardses’ parcel and partly abut Titcomb land.
- In 1924, Cora Perry conveyed several lots to Ensign Otis by deed referencing an 1882 Blackinton plan and expressly granting “the free use of the beach for bathing and boating purposes.” The Blackinton plan depicted an intertidal area but did not label a specific beach.
- In 1986 the Town of Owls Head circulated a two-page petition to accept dedication of “Coopers Beach Road” as a public easement; the owner of the Edwardses’ parcel at that time (McLoon) signed the petition and the town voted to accept the dedication.
- The Town historically sanded and plowed Coopers Beach Road, including the disputed way and cul-de-sac, and after the 1986 vote treated the entire former private road network uniformly as public easement.
- Plaintiffs sued in 2011 seeking declaratory relief that the Town and Scotts had no rights over their property; the Superior Court found (1) the 1986 dedication created a public easement over the way and cul-de-sac on the Edwardses’ land, and (2) Perry’s 1924 deed created an express beach easement that passed to the Scotts’ land.
- The Edwardses appealed, challenging the dedication’s sufficiency and scope and contesting that any 1924 beach easement burdens their property or benefits the Scotts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/timeliness of challenge to 1986 dedication | Edwards: 1986 petition did not sufficiently describe dedicated property under 23 M.R.S. § 3025; challenge is timely as declaratory relief about location | Town: challenge is time‑barred under M.R. Civ. P. 80B (30‑day rule) | Time‑barred; plaintiffs cannot now challenge statutory sufficiency; acceptance presumed effective |
| Geographic scope of the 1986 dedication (way & cul‑de‑sac) | Edwards: petition shows McLoon intended to dedicate only road area abutting his lot; petition unambiguous — no easement over cul‑de‑sac | Town/Scotts: petition ambiguous; extrinsic evidence shows parties/town understood Coopers Beach Road to include the way and cul‑de‑sac | Petition ambiguous; extrinsic evidence supports that McLoon and Town intended to include the way and cul‑de‑sac; easement extends over plaintiffs’ land |
| Creation of beach easement in 1924 deed | Edwards: deed ambiguous as to which beach was granted; extrinsic evidence shows Perry intended only beach in front of lot 24 | Scotts: deed expressly granted “free use of the beach” along with plan reference — created express easement appurtenant to conveyed lots | Deed creates an express easement for bathing/boating over the intertidal area depicted on the plan; not ambiguous as to location |
| Transfer/succession and benefit of beach easement | Edwards: subsequent conveyances divided original estate and omitted beach; intent to apportion/extinguish beach rights as to Scotts’ parcel | Scotts: appurtenant easement passes with dominant estate through divisions and conveyances absent clear intent to extinguish | Easement is appurtenant and passed to lands now owned by Scotts; no clear intent found to extinguish or apportion it away from Scotts’ property |
Key Cases Cited
- Vachon v. Town of Lisbon, 295 A.2d 255 (Me. 1972) (municipal acceptance by vote may accomplish acceptance of a dedication)
- Reed v. A.C. McLoon & Co., 311 A.2d 548 (Me. 1973) (deed construction aims to effectuate parties’ intent)
- Arnold v. Boulay, 83 A.2d 574 (Me. 1951) (easements may be implied where plan features induce purchase)
- O’Connell v. Larkin, 532 A.2d 1039 (Me. 1987) (easement by grant where retained land benefits conveyed land)
- Great Cove Boat Club v. Bureau of Pub. Lands, 672 A.2d 91 (Me. 1996) (appurtenant easement can be extinguished only by clear intent)
- D’Angelo v. McNutt, 868 A.2d 239 (Me. 2005) (appellate review defers to trial court findings if supported by competent evidence)
- Testa’s, Inc. v. Coopersmith, 105 A.3d 1037 (Me. 2014) (construction of dedication petitions and when ambiguity makes intent a factual question)