The case revolves around a dispute over an easement on Testa’s property in Bar Harbor. Testa’s, Inc. appealed a lower court’s decision that found a 1978 agreement granted an appurtenant easement benefiting the Coopersmiths’ properties, or alternatively, that the Coopersmiths had a prescriptive easement.
The background details how the Coopersmiths’ predecessors historically accessed the rear of their properties via a “backyard” owned by Testa’s. When Testa’s predecessors planned to expand their parking lot in the 1970s, which would block this access, a lawsuit ensued. This led to a 1978 written agreement that granted access “by foot or motor vehicle over lands of Testa” to the rear of the Coopersmith and Tourmaline buildings. This agreement included provisions for tokens or keys if gates were installed.
The Supreme Court of Maine affirmed the lower court’s judgment, specifically addressing two main arguments from Testa’s:
- Enforceability of the 1978 Agreement: Testa’s argued the agreement was unenforceable because one of the five original parties, Catherine Riccardo, never signed it. The Court found no error in the lower court’s conclusion that Riccardo’s signature was not necessary for a binding agreement between Testa’s and the Sanborns (predecessors to the Coopersmith building). Furthermore, it found no clear error in the finding that Riccardo implicitly consented to the terms, as her daughter (who actually occupied the property) followed the agreement without objection for years.
- Scope of the 1978 Agreement (License vs. Easement): Testa’s contended the agreement conveyed only a revocable license, not a more permanent easement. The Court disagreed, stating that the language unambiguously granted an appurtenant easement. It highlighted that the agreement guaranteed open-ended access and was not revocable at will, but only upon abuse of access, which is characteristic of an easement, not a license. Therefore, the lower court correctly excluded testimony from the attorney who drafted the agreement, as the language was clear.
Because the Court affirmed the existence of an enforceable appurtenant easement based on the 1978 agreement, it did not need to address the arguments regarding a prescriptive easement.
Summary by Gemini