234 A.3d 1222
Me.2020Background
- In 1912–1941 Charles A. Donovan subdivided the Nubble Point property and conveyed lots subject to deed restrictions.
- A 1941 deed (the Hennessy Deed) conveyed Lots 3, 5, and 72 together and imposed restrictions: (a) Lot 5: no building; (b) Lot 3: only a new one-family house (with price and setback conditions) and a private garage; (c) Lot 72: “A private garage, for use with . . . Lot Number Three (3),” with setback limits and a clause that it "shall not be used for dwelling purposes of any kind."
- Olivia Doyon (trustee) eventually retained Lot 72 and in 2013 conveyed Lots 3 and 5, separating ownership for the first time since the restrictions were created.
- In 2014 Doyon sued for a declaratory judgment seeking to build a single-family home and garage on Lot 72; the trial court found restriction c ambiguous and ruled for Doyon.
- The neighboring lot owners (the Fantinis) appealed; the Supreme Judicial Court reviewed deed interpretation de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Doyon) | Defendant's Argument (Fantinis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Construction of restriction c: whether Lot 72 is limited to a non-dwelling garage for use with Lot 3 or may be used for a dwelling/other structures | Restriction is ambiguous; apply rule favoring less restrictive use and allow house + garage | Restriction unambiguously limits Lot 72 to a private garage for use with Lot 3, subject to the stated setbacks and no dwelling | Court held the deed is unambiguous: Lot 72 may be used only for a garage for Lot 3 (with setbacks); vacated prior judgment and remanded for entry consistent with this interpretation |
| 2) Standing and enforceability: whether Fantinis may enforce the restriction and whether equitable defenses bar enforcement | Fantinis lack standing; alternatively enforcement is inequitable due to changed circumstances or restraint on alienation | Fantinis have standing as title descends from land Donovan retained; equitable defenses fail | Court agreed Fantinis have standing and rejected the equitable arguments (did not reach them further after deciding deed unambiguous) |
Key Cases Cited
- River Dale Ass’n v. Bloss, 901 A.2d 809 (Me. 2006) (deed construction is a question of law; plain meaning controls unless ambiguous)
- Sleeper v. Loring, 83 A.3d 769 (Me. 2013) (instrument must be read as a whole; referenced plan is part of the deed)
- Kinney v. Cent. Me. Power Co., 403 A.2d 346 (Me. 1979) (context of the whole instrument informs deed construction)
- Matteson v. Batchelder, 32 A.3d 1059 (Me. 2011) (ambiguities resolved in favor of less restrictive uses absent extrinsic evidence)
- Boehner v. Briggs, 528 A.2d 451 (Me. 1987) (same rule of construction favoring less restrictive interpretation)
- Herrick v. Marshall, 66 Me. 435 (Me. 1877) (standing to enforce restrictions can derive from retained land title)