Doukas v. Sea Otter, LLC

Cumberland County, Docket No. PORSC-CV-2012-487

This Maine Superior Court case, addresses the plaintiffs’ claim for a prescriptive easement over the defendant’s property.

Here’s a summary of the court’s decision:

  • Background: The plaintiffs (Andrew B. Doukas and William B. Doukas) sought a prescriptive easement for access from the rear of their buildings across the defendant’s property to Vernon Court and State Street. The parties had already settled two other easement claims.
  • Legal Standard for Prescriptive Easement: To establish a prescriptive easement, the plaintiffs needed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence:
    1. Continuous use for at least twenty years.
    2. Under a claim of right adverse to the owner.
    3. With the owner’s knowledge and acquiescence, or use so open and notorious that knowledge and acquiescence are presumed.
  • Court’s Findings:
    • Continuous Use: The court found that the plaintiffs and their tenants/vendors had used the defendant’s property for deliveries, service access, and pedestrian access since the early 1980s. This use was daily or weekly for short periods.
    • Claim of Right Adverse to Owner: The court found against the plaintiffs on this element. The plaintiffs admitted their use was subordinate to the defendant’s use and that they did not believe they owned the property. Their use was deemed “permissive and customary” rather than adverse.
    • Knowledge and Acquiescence: The court noted the defendant was aware of trucks and activity on her property. However, the defendant’s actions (like putting up fences to create security and an attractive enclosure for her condominium project) indicated an assertion of her ownership rights, rather than acquiescence to an adverse claim.
  • Conclusion: The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they used the defendant’s property under a claim of right adverse to the owner, and therefore, they were not entitled to a prescriptive easement.

The judgment was entered for the Defendant on Count II.

Summary by Gemini