In Stickney, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the City of Saco, rejecting Stickney’s claim of adverse possession against municipal property.

Background:

• Stickney claimed ownership by adverse possession of a strip of land between her property and Middle Street in Saco.
• The disputed strip was owned by the City and designated as part of a public street.
• Stickney and her predecessors had used the land (e.g., mowing, planting shrubs) for over 20 years.
• The City argued that adverse possession could not be claimed against land held for public use.

Holding:

The Court held that adverse possession may not be claimed against property held by a municipality for a public use, such as a public street, regardless of whether the municipality actively developed or used the land during the adverse period.

Legal Reasoning:

• Public policy protects publicly held land from private claims of adverse possession when the land is held for a public purpose.
• Even if unused, land held for public ways remains dedicated to public use and immune from private claims.
• The City’s long-standing designation of the land as part of Middle Street established its public use.

Conclusion:

Judgment affirmed. Stickney could not acquire title by adverse possession to land owned by the City of Saco that was held for public use.

Summary by ChatGPT