Jean Dupuis v. Stanley G. Ellingwood, 166 A.3d 112

Jean Dupuis owns two adjoining unnumbered ‘‘Beach Area’’ lots on Lake Maranacook (100 feet frontage each); his 2000 deed acknowledged others’ rights to use the beach area.
Stanley and Sylvia Ellingwood own Lots 33–38, conveyed in 1969 with language granting them and those claiming under them a right of joint use of a 100-foot private beach area—found by the trial court to create an express easement.
Dupuis sued to quiet title and to declare any easement rights extinguished; the case proceeded to a bench trial and judgment for the Ellingwoods.
The trial court found the Ellingwoods had abandoned only the portion of the easement where structures were built, but not the shorefront portion; evidence showed some use by the Ellingwoods’ son through 2006.
The court also found Dupuis failed to prove adverse possession of the shorefront portion because he was on notice of others’ rights (deed language) and sought release deeds from neighbors, indicating lack of a ‘‘claim of right.’n
Dupuis’s motions for additional findings and reconsideration were denied; he appealed and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the express easement was extinguished by abandonment	Dupuis: Ellingwoods never objected to structures/improvements, made no improvements, and stopped using the beach since the 1970s — clear intent to abandon the easement	Ellingwoods: Any failure to object extinguished only the portion blocked by structures; they continued to use other parts (including shorefront)	Court: Abandonment shown only as to area where structures sit; shorefront easement not abandoned (affirmed)
Whether the express easement was extinguished by adverse possession	Dupuis: Long, open, continuous, exclusive use and improvements to the shorefront met adverse possession elements	Ellingwoods: Dupuis knew of easement rights (deed language) and sought release deeds, showing recognition of others’ rights — no possession under a claim of right	Court: Dupuis failed to prove possession under a claim of right; adverse possession not established; easement remains (affirmed)

Laux v. Harrington, 38 A.3d 318 (Me. 2012) (elements and principles governing extinguishment of easements)
Gravison v. Fisher, 134 A.3d 857 (Me. 2016) (abandonment requires nonuse plus unequivocal act or omission; structures may extinguish only obstructed part)
Levis v. Konitzky, 151 A.3d 20 (Me. 2016) (elements of adverse possession and standard for proving extinguishment of easement by adverse possession)
Bolduc v. Watson, 639 A.2d 629 (Me. 1994) (failure to object to permanent structure can support extinguishment of easement where structure prevents enjoyment)
Chase v. Eastman, 563 A.2d 1099 (Me. 1989) (failure to object to erection of structure resulted in partial extinguishment of easement)
Dombkowski v. Ferland, 893 A.2d 599 (Me. 2006) (possession under claim of right requires intent to possess as owner, not in recognition of another’s title)
Stickney v. City of Saco, 770 A.2d 592 (Me. 2001) (abandonment of easement requires clear and convincing evidence)