128 A.3d 657
Me.2015Background
- Richard P. French sought a declaratory judgment that he owns an access easement across land now owned by the Estate of Martha Gutzan.
- French’s title traces to an 1880 deed in which Reuben Hutchings reserved “the right of way from said lot East of Meadow Brook to the County road in the way as now travelled” when transferring adjacent land to his brother.
- In 1884 Reuben conveyed the lot (described in later deeds as the Grindle deed) with “all the privileges and appurtenances thereunto,” and French later acquired that lot by deed chain.
- The Estate’s deed contains language referencing a right reserved to Reuben H. Hutchings to cross the northerly part of the Estate’s lot to the county road, providing constructive notice.
- The District Court found the 1880 reservation created an easement appurtenant that passed with the dominant estate to French; the Estate appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (French) | Defendant's Argument (Estate) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Character of the 1880 reservation: appurtenant vs in gross | The 1880 reservation was appurtenant to the retained lot and intended to provide enduring access for the land | The reservation was an easement in gross for Reuben personally and did not pass with the land | Court held the reservation created an easement appurtenant (favoring appurtenant construction absent clear contrary intent) |
| Whether the easement benefit passed to French | The benefit of an appurtenant easement passes automatically to subsequent owners of the dominant estate; French owns that estate via the Grindle deed | Even if appurtenant, French failed to prove he owns the dominant estate benefitted by the easement | Court held French proved ownership of the dominant estate as conveyed by the Grindle deed and thus owns the easement |
| Whether the burden of the easement ran to the Estate | The Estate had constructive notice in its deed referencing the right, so the servient estate took subject to the easement | The Estate argued lack of effective notice or that reservation was personal so burden did not run | Court held the Estate had constructive notice; burden ran with the servient estate |
| Whether plaintiff had to prove precise physical location of easement | Precise survey not required to declare existence and ownership where no dispute the easement runs over Estate’s land | The Estate argued precise on‑the‑ground location was required | Court held precise location not required for declaratory judgment of existence and ownership where location over Estate’s property was not contested |
Key Cases Cited
- Stickney v. City of Saco, 770 A.2d 592 (Me. 2001) (preference to interpret easements as appurtenant and role of surveys in locating easements)
- Anchors v. Manter, 714 A.2d 134 (Me. 1998) (when deed language is ambiguous, court may determine parties’ intent; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- O’Neill v. Williams, 527 A.2d 322 (Me. 1987) (courts routinely construe reservations as appurtenant to effect parties’ intent)
- LeMay v. Anderson, 397 A.2d 984 (Me. 1979) (distinction between easement in gross and appurtenant; effect of fee ownership on prior interests)
- Tarason v. Wesson Realty, LLC, 40 A.3d 1005 (Me. 2012) (Short Form Deeds Act presumes easements appurtenant unless instrument clearly restricts to a person)
- LaBelle v. Blake, 714 A.2d 145 (Me. 1998) (plaintiff’s burden to prove creation and ownership of easement)
- Hodgdon v. Campbell, 411 A.2d 667 (Me. 1980) (burden of proof principles in easement claims)
Judgment affirmed.