This document is a legal ruling from the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine regarding a property dispute between adjoining landowners, O’Connell and Larkin. The dispute concerns a triangular-shaped piece of land on Larkin’s property, adjacent to a driveway owned by the O’Connells. The O’Connells claimed an implied easement over this triangular area for access to their rental units.

The key points of the ruling are:

• Factual History: Both parties’ properties were originally owned by Agnes Brewer. In 1963, Brewer sold the portion with rental units (now O’Connells’) to Rentals, Inc., and retained her residence (now Larkin’s). The memorandum of agreement and subsequent deed for the sale to Rentals, Inc., explicitly provided for a 19-foot wide driveway for access to the rental units. Although Brewer had parked her car in the disputed triangular area in the 1950s, she did not own a car at the time of the 1963 division. Larkin purchased his property in 1980 and understood he could park in the triangular area. The O’Connells objected, leading Larkin to post a notice to prevent an easement and later install steel posts, which the O’Connells claimed interfered with their access.
• Trial Court Ruling: The Superior Court found that an implied easement was created in favor of the O’Connells in 1963. The court acknowledged that strict necessity was not present but found that the use of the triangular parcel was necessary for the full enjoyment of the O’Connells’ property, as removing trees and constructing a retaining wall would be expensive and inconvenient for alternative access.
• Supreme Judicial Court Ruling: The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the lower court’s judgment. It reasoned that while an easement can be implied, the primary focus is on the probable intent of the parties at the time of the conveyance. The court found that the express provisions in the memorandum of agreement and deed—which explicitly conveyed a 19-foot wide driveway for access—clearly demonstrated the parties’ intent regarding access. Since the expressly conveyed driveway already provided clear access, and the claimed easement was not strictly necessary, the court concluded that it could not be inferred that Miss Brewer intended to create an additional access easement over her retained land.

Summary by Gemini