214 A.3d 1054
Me.2019Background
- Neighboring Cape Elizabeth landowners disputed ownership and use of roads and narrow strips shown on a 1929 subdivision plan (Cunner Lane, Brook Road, Sunrise Drive) and adjacent five-foot strips; three consolidated Superior Court actions followed various deeds, reconveyances, and later conveyance of title by HEB to Cunner Lane II in 2017.
- The 1929 Plan showed a 20-foot Cunner Lane corridor and unnamed 20-foot branches; some original lot deeds reserved or reconveyed five-foot strips at lot edges and granted rights-of-way for passage.
- Smith (and entities he controls) held record title to portions of the underlying parcels and paved the existing roadway after a 1998 survey showed the on-the-ground road shifted from the 1929 Plan alignment.
- Plaintiffs (the Cunner Lane Owners: Fissmer, Burkes, Gramses, and Siegel) sought declarations of title by adverse possession for areas they used as lawns, driveways, and gardens; defendants (Smith and Cunner Lane II) asserted record title under the Paper Streets Act (PSA) and disputed adverse-possession proof.
- The trial court concluded Cunner Lane II holds record title to the 20-foot corridor and five-foot strips under the PSA, but the Cunner Lane Owners acquired fee title by adverse possession to land up to the paved edge of present-day Cunner Lane; certain PSA-based holdings (Sunrise Drive, portions of Brook Road, and Siegel’s asserted title) were erroneous or overbroad and were vacated/remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Paper Streets Act to 1929 Cunner Lane corridor and five‑foot strips | Cunner Lane Owners: PSA should vest ownership in abutting lot owners | Smith/Cunner Lane II: HEB reserved/reconveyed five‑foot strips, so PSA vests record title in HEB and its grantee | Court: Cunner Lane II is record owner of the 20‑ft corridor and five‑ft strips; PSA does not vest those strips in the abutting lot owners because HEB held title to the strips |
| Ownership of Sunrise Drive under PSA | Fissmer: claims fee title under PSA to Sunrise Drive | Cunner Lane II: HEB reserved/reacquired strip along Sunrise, so PSA does not convey Sunrise to Fissmer | Court: Vacated trial court’s declaration; Cunner Lane II is record owner of Sunrise Drive as on 1929 Plan; remand for adverse‑possession questions |
| Ownership of Brook Road segments under PSA | Burkes/Gramses: PSA gives them title to Brook Road where it abuts their lots | Cunner Lane II: Brook Road on the ground differs from 1929 Plan; five‑ft strips may interrupt abutment so PSA does not give full claimed reach | Court: Trial court’s broad declaration vacated in part; Burkes/Gramses may own only those Brook Road segments as depicted on 1929 Plan where their lots abut; segments lined by five‑ft strips belong to Cunner Lane II absent adverse possession; remand to define segments and strips |
| Adverse possession of disputed lawn/driveway areas up to paved edge of Cunner Lane | Cunner Lane Owners: long‑term open, notorious, hostile, continuous, exclusive use for >20 years establishes fee title | Smith/Cunner Lane II: uses consistent with easement/rights‑of‑way and thus non‑hostile and/or discontinuous | Court: Affirmed adverse possession holdings — owners satisfied all elements in aggregate and obtained title up to paved edge; but remanded to legally establish new boundary lines |
Key Cases Cited
- Tisdale v. Buch, 81 A.3d 377 (Me. 2013) (purpose and scope of Paper Streets Act)
- Fournier v. Elliott, 966 A.2d 410 (Me. 2009) (definition of "proposed, unaccepted way")
- Dupuis v. Ellingwood, 166 A.3d 112 (Me. 2017) (standard for reviewing trial court factual findings)
- Weeks v. Krysa, 955 A.2d 234 (Me. 2008) (elements for adverse possession)
- Striefel v. Charles‑Keyt‑Leaman P’ship, 733 A.2d 984 (Me. 1999) (Maine disfavoring of adverse‑possession transfers; standard of review)
- Grondin v. Hanscom, 106 A.3d 1150 (Me. 2014) (mixed question of fact and law in adverse possession)
- D’Angelo v. McNutt, 868 A.2d 239 (Me. 2005) (adverse‑possession legal review)
- Hennessy v. Fairley, 796 A.2d 41 (Me. 2002) (requirement to clearly describe boundaries when declaring adverse‑possession title)
- Guild v. Hinman, 695 A.2d 1190 (Me. 1997) (scope of easement/right‑of‑way assessed by intended purpose)
- Badger v. Hill, 404 A.2d 222 (Me. 1979) (easement purpose and scope analysis)