Laux v. Harrington
2012 ME 18
| Me. | 2012Background
- Laux appeals and Harrington cross-appeals from a Superior Court judgment declaring the continued existence and location of a road easement in favor of Harrington over Laux’s property in Newry and Hanover, and awarding Harrington nominal damages for interference.
- The 1962 easement arose when Ralph Richardson conveyed to Gerald Harrington a right of way over his Cow Pasture, with conditions for keeping gates closed while livestock are pastured.
- The easement burdened Richardson’s land, later owned by Erik Nelson and then by Laux; the servient parcel is depicted on a judgment exhibit showing a woods road through Laux’s land.
- In 1990, Gerald Harrington executed a quitclaim deed to Erik Nelson purporting to release rights in land described as south of a 400-foot line along Stoney Brook, raising the question whether the easement was extinguished.
- Before trial, Harrington accessed his lot via a permissive road across Chadbourne land; in 2008 Chadbourne closed the road, leading to further disputes about use of Laux’s easement.
- During trial in 2011, the court granted Harrington judgment as a matter of law on extinguishment, then ruled on abandonment, location, overburdening, and Harrington’s counterclaims, awarding nominal damages and issuing an injunction against Laux.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the 1990 quitclaim extinguish the easement? | Laux: quitclaim released any right by Harrington. | Harrington: quitclaim intended boundary clarification, not extinguishment. | Quitclaim ambiguous; extrinsic evidence shows no extinguishment. |
| If ambiguous, may extrinsic evidence determine intent to extinguish? | Laux: extrinsic evidence supports extinguishment. | Harrington: extrinsic evidence clarifies boundary, not extinguishment. | Court may consider extrinsic evidence; record supports no extinguishment. |
| Has Harrington abandoned the easement by nonuse or adverse possession? | Laux: abandonment shown by nonuse due to condominium construction. | Harrington: no clear intent to abandon; adverse possession not shown by Laux. | No abandonment; no adverse possession established. |
| What is the proper location and course of the easement? | Laux: location limited by original entry point; current path over Powell land is improper. | Harrington: current course via necessity is permitted and aligns with use. | Easement lies along the current woods road, including modified course due to necessity; nonparties’ land described as factual recitation. |
| Was Harrington overburdening the servient estate or were improvements within the easement scope, and should punitive damages be awarded? | Laux: improvements overburden the easement; damages and punitive damages may be warranted. | Harrington: improvements within original purpose; punitive damages not warranted. | Improvements not overburdening; nominal damages awarded; punitive damages denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matteson v. Batchelder, 2011 ME 134 (Me. 2011) (objective intent of parties is a question of fact; extrinsic evidence used when ambiguity exists)
- Friedlander v. Hiram Ricker & Sons, Inc., 485 A.2d 965 (Me. 1984) (ambiguous language may require extrinsic evidence to ascertain release intent)
- Flaherty v. Muther, 2011 ME 32 (Me. 2011) (intent to extinguish easement depends on context; boundary and use considerations)
- D’Angelo v. McNutt, 2005 ME 31 (Me. 2005) (elements of abandonment; mirrors adverse possession standards for servient easements)
- Waxler v. Waxler, 1997 ME 190 (Me. 1997) (standards for punitive damages; clear and convincing evidence and malice threshold)
- Estate of Hoch v. Stifel, 2011 ME 24 (Me. 2011) (damage review is deferential to the trial court's factual determinations)
- State v. Hamel, 2007 ME 18 (Me. 2007) (Rule 403 balancing in evidentiary rulings; trial court discretion)