Helen Rivas Rose v. William Parsons Jr.
76 A.3d 343
Me.2013Background
- Farm Lot (the Farm Lot) is an oceanfront back lot historically appurtenant to roads A and H under the 1915 Plan, with the Farm Lot owned by Rose and Merrill.
- Parsons family deeds and a 1956 codicil to Helen Parsons Merrill’s will created or preserved easements over Roads A and H for the Farm Lot’s benefit.
- Parsons’ estate held all relevant properties in 1943; thereafter, Rose and Merrill acquired the Farm Lot and related parcels.
- There is a dispute whether Roads A and H easements survive today for the Farm Lot (dominant) and neighboring lots (servient).
- Trial court held merger extinguished easements and no later deed revived them; the court remanded to assess whether the codicil created express easements and whether abandonment occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the codicil re-creates easements for the Farm Lot | Codicil set easements 'in appurtenances' to Farm Lot. | Merger terminated easements; no revival by codicil. | Codicil establishes easements for Farm Lot. |
| Effect of merger on the easements | Merger does not negate codicil-created easements. | Merger extinguished easements prior to codicil. | Merger not controlling; codicil creates easements. |
| Whether abandonment affects the codicil-created easements | Rose and Merrill abandoned rights after creation. | Abandonment not established absent evidence. | Remand to decide abandonment following codicil-established easements. |
| Whether Rose and Merrill can prove slander of title | False statements about lack of easements harmed title. | Evidence insufficient to show malice or falsity. | Summary judgment on slander of title affirmed; no malice shown. |
| Whether adverse possession competes with codicil-created easements | Possession could establish rights over Roads A and H. | No prima facie evidence of adverse possession. | No error; evidence insufficient for adverse possession. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe I v. Williams, 61 A.3d 718 (Me. 2013) (summary judgment de novo review; prima facie case required)
- Williams v. Dearborn, 64 A. 851 (Me. 1906) (conveyance of real property via codicil/will; recording practices)
- In re Estate of Wilson, 828 A.2d 784 (Me. 2003) (interpretation of wills; extrinsic evidence controlled by document context)
- Canadian Nat’l Ry. v. Sprague, 609 A.2d 1175 (Me. 1992) (abandonment of express easement; standard of proof)