Flaherty v. Muther
17 A.3d 640
| Me. | 2011Background
- Private walkway easement over Lot J-46 to Secret Beach; J-Lot owners hold deeded easements and share a 20' easement with Muther/Woods; prior litigation (2005–2009) involved prescriptive easement claims and a settlement conference resulting in terms including a gate, key-card system, and fee provisions; the Association represented its members in the prior suit but J-Lot owners were not parties; Muther/Woods installed a gate and surveillance cameras post-settlement; the trial court later found the gate and cameras unreasonable and limited public intertidal use to fishing, fowling, and navigation; the State intervened to protect public trust rights; the Superior Court entered judgment and the current appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binding effect of the prior settlement | Muther/Woods: J-Lot owners privity or ratification bind them | J-Lot owners: no privity or ratification binding them | J-Lot owners not bound; no privity/ratification established |
| Indemnification, fraud, and implied warranty of authority | Muther/Woods: Association liable for acts of its members under settlement | Association did not misrepresent authority; no breach established | No prima facie case for indemnification, fraud, or implied warranty of authority |
| Scope of the easement | Easement limited to private walkway to limit use to J-Lots | Easement permits general recreational use to Secret Beach; implied by conduct | Easement affirmed for general recreational use to Secret Beach; not limited to strict walkway |
| Reasonableness of the gate and surveillance cameras | Gate/cameras unreasonably burden easement use | Gate/cameras reasonable to protect property and deter trespass | Gate not an unreasonable obstruction; remand to resolve nondisturbance implications of cameras; costs remanded |
| J-Lot access to upland and prescriptive rights | J-Lot upland prescriptive rights exist as class of persons | Limited use by few did not establish class-wide prescriptive rights | No prescriptive rights for upland as a class; limited use did not prove continuous use by nineteen households |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Town of Wells (Bell II), 557 A.2d 168 (Me. 1989) (public trust rights in intertidal lands limited to traditional uses; did not adopt broader open-use concept)
- Guild v. Hinman, 1997 ME 120, 695 A.2d 1190 (Me. 1997) (objective intent and extrinsic evidence for easement purposes; use post-creation relevant)
- Fine Line, Inc. v. Blake, 677 A.2d 1064 (Me. 1996) (searching for stated purpose of easement; use of extrinsic evidence)
- Eaton v. Town of Wells, 2000 ME 176, 760 A.2d 232 (Me. 2000) (prescriptive rights and servitudes influenced by open/notorious use)
- Murch v. Nash, 2004 ME 139, 861 A.2d 645 (Me. 2004) (easement by implication based on plan and deed references)
- Ames v. Shaw, 82 Me. 379, 19 A. 856 (Me. 1890) (reasonableness of gate across a right-of-way; historical precedent)
- Lakeside at Pleasant Mountain Condo. Ass'n v. Town of Bridgton, 2009 ME 64, 974 A.2d 893 (Me. 2009) (use of a right-of-way by guests/relatives not per se overburdening)