Muther v. Broad Cove Shore Ass'n
2011 ME 33
| Me. | 2011Background
- In April 2008, Woods installed a fence and locking gate across the easement entrance per a 2006 settlement.
- Woods also installed two video surveillance cameras on the easement without the J-Lot owners' consent.
- J-Lot owners sued Muther and Woods for declaratory judgment on easement use and sought to enjoin the gate and obstruction.
- Muther and Woods counterclaimed and a third-party complaint were filed against all J-Lot owners and the Broad Cove Shore Association; the State intervened.
- A trial court in Flaherty held the easement is a private right-of-way for J-Lot access to the intertidal zone and ordered removal of the gate and cameras.
- Muther and Woods appealed; the J-Lot owners and the State cross-appealed; Muther/Woods later moved under Rule 60(b) for relief from the 2006 settlement judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of Flaherty I on Rule 60(b) relief denial | Flaherty I conflicts with the 2006 settlement terms, supporting relief. | No conflict; relief not warranted. | Judgment vacated and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
| Whether Flaherty I alters the settlement terms governing Muther/Woods | Flaherty I changes the basis of the prior rulings, necessitating reconsideration. | Settlement terms remain valid despite Flaherty I's changes. | Remand for appropriate consideration following final Flaherty judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flaherty v. Muther, 2011 ME 32 (Me. 2011) (relates to rights of J-Lot owners and impact on settlements)
- Muther v. Broad Cove Shore Ass'n, 2009 ME 37 (Me. 2009) (establishes prior settlement framework and rights)
- Flaherty v. Muther, 2011 ME 34 (Me. 2011) (Flaherty II; further context on related proceedings)