217 A.3d 1111
Me.2019Background
- Goose Rocks Beach (Kennebunkport) — 23 beachfront property owners sued the Town claiming each parcel extended seaward to mean low-water; the Town counterclaimed ownership/use rights. The State and others intervened.
- The case was bifurcated: an earlier bench trial (2012) resolved public-use claims (prescriptive easement/custom/public trust) and was partly remanded; an 11‑day bench trial in 2016 addressed title and deeds with voluminous historical evidence.
- The trial court concluded that for 22 of the 23 disputed parcels the seaward boundary is a natural/manmade "seawall" landward of the intertidal zone; only the Temerlin parcel proved title to a portion of the beach.
- The court found the Town holds title seaward of the seawall (dry sand and intertidal zone) based on historical grants: the 1684 Danforth indenture to trustees (proprietors) for inhabitants and subsequent dissolution/transfer of proprietary records to the Town.
- The Law Court affirmed: (1) the Town’s surveyor expert testimony was admissible and properly relied upon; (2) the seawall is an embankment landward of mean high‑water; (3) the 22 owners’ deeds did not carry title to the low‑water mark; (4) title to the disputed beach land vested in the Town in these historical circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/reliability of Town surveyor expert testimony | Surveyor exceeded expertise, used unreliable methodology to identify "seawall" | Surveyor was qualified, applied accepted surveying/historical methods and produced relevant evidence | Court did not err; expert testimony admissible and properly relied upon |
| Legal meaning/location of "seawall" | Court applied a universal definition and ignored deed‑specific intent; some owners contend seawall should include dry sand/beach | "Seawall" denotes an elevated natural or manmade embankment landward of the high water line and is a face‑of‑the‑earth monument | Court definition affirmed: seawall = embankment/embankment feature landward of mean high‑water; location is case‑specific |
| Seaward boundary of parcels / presumption of upland ownership to low‑water | Owners contend beach passed as appurtenance; long record title and later deeds calling to water support ownership to mean low‑water | Foundational deeds/older layouts bound parcels to the seawall or top of bank; later calls to water do not resurrect a presumption | Court correctly applied deed‑construction rules: early deeds excluding the beach defeat the presumption; seawall is seaward boundary for 22 parcels |
| Town's title to disputed beach (Danforth/proprietors issue) | Danforth indenture did not convey fee to Town; any proprietors' interest did not vest in Town absent express grant | Danforth granted to trustees for inhabitants; proprietors were quasi‑corporate, later dissolved and records transferred to Town; title passed by operation of law | Court affirmed: Danforth granted common/undivided land to trustees for inhabitants; proprietors’ interests, not having been separately granted, passed to the Town in these circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Almeder v. Town of Kennebunkport, 106 A.3d 1099 (Me. 2014) (prior appeal addressing public‑use claims)
- Hodge v. Boothby, 48 Me. 68 (Me. 1861) (definition of "beach/shore")
- Hodgdon v. Campbell, 411 A.2d 667 (Me. 1980) (shore as monument limiting a grant to the high‑water mark)
- Eaton v. Town of Wells, 760 A.2d 232 (Me. 2000) (proprietors‑to‑town title argument and limits where specific grants exist)
- Dunton v. Parker, 54 A. 1115 (Me. 1903) (later deeds and long possession can support shore inclusion in some chains)
- Bates v. Cohasset, 182 N.E. 284 (Mass. 1932) (historical discussion of proprietaries as temporary/quasi‑corporate entities and disposition of common land)