Sanseverino v. Gregor
10 A.3d 735
Me.2011Background
- Meduxnekeag Lake Properties deed restrictions limit lots to single-family residential use and prohibit commercial activity.
- Holmes initially did not own an MLP lot, but later acquired one subject to the covenant and joined the suit.
- In 2004, the Trust had Lane cut timber, build fire roads, and harvest timber for profit on Trust lots.
- Sanseverino and Holmes filed suit seeking to enjoin timber harvesting and related activities violating the covenant.
- The trial court denied the Trust’s Rule 12(b)(7) motion to dismiss for failure to join other lot owners and held the covenant unambiguous.
- The court concluded the Trust’s timbering and road construction violated the covenant and enjoined further nonresidential activities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of Holmes | Holmes had standing after acquiring an MLP lot subject to covenant. | Standing required at the outset of litigation; Holmes lacked initial interest. | Court could allow Holmes to rejoin; standing proper. |
| Joinder under Rule 19 | Joinder of other lot owners unnecessary; interests unaffected. | Other owners should be joined due to potential interests under covenants/Tree Growth Law. | Joinder not required; no prejudice or multiple obligations. |
| Ambiguity of covenant and extrinsic evidence | Language ambiguous; extrinsic evidence permissible to resolve. | Covenant unambiguous; extrinsic evidence not needed. | Covenant unambiguous; interpret based on plain language. |
| Application of covenant to timbering | Timber harvesting and road construction constitute commercial activity prohibited by covenant. | Activities could be consistent with residential use or ancillary to it. | Timbering and road work violated covenant; injunction proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Silsby v. Belch, 2008 ME 104 (Me. 2008) (covenant interpretation principles; ambiguity can be resolved without extrinsic evidence)
- River Dale Ass'n v. Bloss, 2006 ME 86 (Me. 2006) (plain-language approach to restrictive covenants)
- Kelly v. Michaud's Ins. Agency, Inc., 651 A.2d 345 (Me. 1994) (discretion in adding or dropping parties under Rule 21)
- Muther v. Broad Cove Shore Ass'n, 2009 ME 37 (Me. 2009) (joinder and intervention considerations in restrictive-covenant actions)
- Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB v. Gile, 2001 ME 120 (Me. 2001) (joinder and adjudication efficiency; absence of prejudice)
- Kandlis v. Huotari, 678 A.2d 41 (Me. 1996) (interpretation of covenants and related documents)
- Sebra v. Wentworth, 2010 ME 21 (Me. 2010) (evidence standards and factual sufficiency on covenant enforcement)