Stickney v. City of Saco


“Property owners brought action against city and adjoining
property owners, seeking to quiet title and to establish
easement by prescription, and alleging claims for
trespass, reverse condemnation, § 1983 violation, and
damages. The Superior Court, York County, Fritzsche, J.,
declared that lane bordering properties was a public way,
granted city a prescriptive easement in land beyond
paved area of lane, dismissed § 1983 claim, and held that
plaintiff had easement on portion of adjoining property.
Appeals were taken. The Supreme Judicial Court,
Rudman, J., held that: (1) evidence supported city’s right
to public way by prescriptive use; (2) boundary
surveyor’s uncontroverted testimony supported finding
that width of lane extended beyond its paved portions; (3)
property owners’ § 1983 claim was timebarred; (4)
evidence supported finding that grantor intended
easement over adjoining property to be perpetual in
nature; (5) adjoining property owners were not innocent
purchasers entitled to invoke doctrine of equitable
estoppel to extinguish easement; (6) as a matter of first
impression, tax sale did not extinguish easement
appurtenant; and (7) evidence of prior use supported
permitting use of vehicles on right-of-way.


Stickney v. City of Saco 770_A_2d_592