McCormick v. LaChance
2011 ME 112
Me.2011Background
- Prior appellate action McCormick I involved whether the previous owner relocated an easement by deed referencing a plan; reconsideration granted because the record showed the parties prepared for trial and the trial court conducted a view affecting issues not raised at summary judgment.
- Crane and Maynard transfers created an easement across the Crane servient estate for a path to the sea; the easement language contemplated relocation to a new location if reestablished by Crane, with rights to the easement to extend to the relocated path.
- The 2001 Town plan for a Private Way, Deans Way displayed a “Trail to Ocean (Easement)” that purported to relocate the easement but did so without notice to the dominant estate owners.
- McCormick’s 2001 deed to part of Crane property and LaChance’s 2001 deed to the remaining Crane property referenced the Trail to Ocean but did not convey a right to relocate; the Back Lot Owners hold rights benefiting from the easement.
- In 2008, McCormick improved the portion of the Trail to Ocean on his land; BEP stayed proceedings pending resolution of quiet title; the superior court held the easement had never been relocated on the face of the earth and enjoined McCormick’s alterations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether recording the 2001 Plan for Deans Way relocated the easement | McCormick contends the plan relocated the easement | LaChance/Back Lot Owners argue no relocation occurred | Relocation must occur on the face of the earth; plan recording did not relocate |
| Whether Cranes had unilateral authority to relocate the easement and whether such relocation benefits are preserved | Crane’s unilateral right could relocate to be equally convenient | Right to relocate limited to convenience and not accomplished by plan alone | Relocation not accomplished by recording plan; rights limited and not effectuated |
| Whether the trial court’s focus on actions on the ground (after deed) was preserved on appeal | McCormick argued actions on the ground should be considered | Issues not presented to the trial court were not preserved | Issue misapprehension corrected; reconsideration granted |
| Whether the easement relocation standard from Restatement and Maine law requires relocation on the face of the earth | Relocation occurred through deed/plan | Relocation must be actual on the ground | Restatement standard requires face-of-earth relocation; plan did not satisfy |
Key Cases Cited
- Lyon v. Lea, 84 Me. 254, 24 A. 844 (1892) (Me. 1892) (easement relocation must be on the ground to be effective)
- Blue Star Corp. v. CKF Props., LLC, 2009 ME 101, 980 A.2d 1270 (Me. 2009) (summary judgment record and factual inferences apply to easement disputes)