118 A.3d 220
Me.2015Background
- Maine Supreme Judicial Court decided Rose v. Parsons (2015 ME 73) concerning easements over two roads to the beach in Kennebunk.
- On the first appeal, the court vacated part of the summary judgment and remanded to address continued existence or abandonment of the easements.
- On remand, the parties again pursued cross-motions for summary judgment rather than proceeding to trial.
- The trial court granted Rose/Merrill declaratory judgment and denied Parsons' motion; one neighbor’s cross-claim and its motion were resolved in Rose/Merrill’s favor.
- The appellate court concluded summary judgment was inappropriate because genuine issues of material fact remained, requiring factual resolution.
- The matter was remanded with guidance to proceed via stipulations, a paper record, or a full trial to resolve the easement issues promptly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence and scope of easements over the two roads | Rose/Merrill contend easements exist and control access to the beach. | Parsons and neighbors claim the easements are non-existent or have been abandoned or narrowed. | Disputed facts preclude summary judgment; remand for factual resolution. |
| Abandonment of the easements | Easements remain in force and usable for beach access. | Easements have been abandoned or extinguished due to lack of use or other conduct. | Summary judgment inappropriate; need factual development on remand. |
| Procedures on remand to resolve remaining facts | Parties may present stipulated facts or a paper record for decision. | Parties may rely on stipulations or return to trial if necessary. | Remand permitted stipulations, paper records, or a full trial to determine issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Curtis v. Porter, 2001 ME 158 (Me. 2001) (summary judgment not substitute for trial when facts disputed)
- Niehoff v. Shankman & Assocs. Legal Ctr., P.A., 2000 ME 214 (Me. 2000) (summary judgment limitations when factual inferences exist)
- Rutland v. Mullen, 2002 ME 98 (Me. 2002) (vacate judgment when genuine issues of material fact exist)
- Christian Fellowship & Renewal Ctr. v. Town of Limington, 2006 ME 44 (Me. 2006) (use of stipulated facts on remand to streamline proceedings)
- Peerless Ins. Co. v. Progressive Ins. Co., 2003 ME 66 (Me. 2003) (admission of documentary record by stipulation on remand)
- Harvey v. Furrow, 2014 ME 149 (Me. 2014) (stipulated record with brief evidentiary hearing on remand)
- Enerquin Air, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor, 670 A.2d 926 (Me. 1996) (limits on judicial fact-finding in summary judgment context)
- Boston Five Cents Sav. Bank v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 768 F.2d 5 (1st Cir. 1985) (when record is stipulated, court may draw inferences for decision)