290 A.3d 79
Me.2023Background
- Dispute over ownership and use of intertidal land on Penobscot Bay after Nordic Aquafarms proposed burying industrial pipes; parties include Nordic, the Eckrotes, the City of Belfast, and plaintiffs Jeffrey Mabee and Judith Grace (with conservation groups).
- Harriet L. Hartley owned the entire area and made three relevant deeds: (1) Jan 1946 to Poor (describes boundary “along high water mark” and contains a residential-use covenant), (2) Oct 1946 to Cassida (expressly conveyed intertidal land “in front”), and (3) Sep 1950 to the Butlers (described easterly boundary “by Penobscot Bay”).
- Chains of title: portions of the Poor and Cassida parcels later yielded the Eckrotes’ and Morgan’s uplands; the Butlers’ parcel passed through the Bells/Trainors line to Mabee and Grace, who claim the disputed intertidal land abutting multiple uplands.
- At bench trial the Superior Court held Poor’s deed severed intertidal land (so Eckrotes/Morgan lacked title) but concluded Mabee and Grace had not established title to intertidal abutting the Eckrotes and Morgan; plaintiffs appealed along with conservation-assignee Friends.
- The Supreme Judicial Court reviewed deed construction de novo, analyzed rules for waterfront conveyances (calls to water, “to” as exclusion, abutter-deed principles), and assessed whether a restrictive covenant in the Poor deed runs with the land and whether injunctive relief enforcing the conservation easement was warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Hartley-to-Poor deed conveyed the intertidal land in front of the Poor parcel | Hartley did not intend to retain the intertidal; Poor acquired the flats | The deed did not include the intertidal (defendants relied on severance language) | Held: The Hartley-to-Poor deed did not convey the intertidal; calls point to high-water mark and exclude the flats. |
| Whether the intertidal land was later conveyed to Mabee & Grace via the Hartley-to-Butlers chain | The Butlers/trace conveyances (abutters’ deed) conveyed the intertidal to Mabee & Grace | Nordic argued that once severed to Poor the intertidal remained with Hartley/her heirs and was not conveyed | Held: The Hartley-to-Butlers abutters’ deed, interpreted with abutter-monument rules, unambiguously conveyed the disputed intertidal to Mabee & Grace’s predecessors. |
| Whether the residential-use restriction in the Hartley-to-Poor deed runs with the land | Mabee & Grace (successors to benefited land) can enforce the covenant against successors to Poor’s parcel | Defendants challenged enforceability/running with the land | Held: The restrictive covenant is an appurtenant servitude, reasonable in purpose, and runs with the land; successors may enforce it. |
| Whether injunctive relief is mandated to enforce the conservation easement held by Friends | Plaintiffs sought mandatory injunctive relief to prevent Nordic/Eckrote activities on disputed flats | Defendants argued no present injury or title basis to justify injunction | Held: Although Friends holds an enforceable conservation easement, injunctive relief is not compelled because there is no present, ongoing violation warranting a forward-looking injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hodgdon v. Campbell, 411 A.2d 667 (Me. 1980) (plaintiff in quiet-title action must prove better title)
- Almeder v. Town of Kennebunkport, 217 A.3d 1111 (Me. 2019) (presumption that upland owner owns to low-water mark; calls to water trigger presumption)
- Whitmore v. Brown, 61 A. 985 (Me. 1905) (where shore line termini are at high-water mark, the shore/flats are excluded)
- Sylvan Props. Co. v. State Planning Office, 711 A.2d 138 (Me. 1998) (deed construction is a question of law reviewed de novo; extrinsic evidence considered only if ambiguous)
- Edmonds v. Becker, 434 A.2d 1012 (Me. 1981) (abutter-monument rule: adjoining tract controls when established and known)