Major Easement Ruling in Gravison v. Fisher (Maine Superior Court, 2014)
In Gravison v. Fisher, a complex land dispute involving multiple waterfront and upland property owners in Owls Head, Maine, the Superior Court issued a significant decision clarifying deeded and prescriptive easement rights in a historic coastal neighborhood.
Background:
Owners of inland lots near Cooper’s Beach claimed rights to use a perimeter footpath and beach areas crossing over land owned by the Gravisons, the Edwardses, and the Titcomb Trust. They asserted both prescriptive (longstanding use) and deeded easement rights stemming from historic subdivision plans.
Key Rulings:
-
No Prescriptive Easement Rights:
The court rejected all prescriptive easement claims. Despite decades of neighborly recreational use, the court found the use was permissive—not hostile or under a “claim of right”—and thus did not create legal rights. Friendly relations and open use undermined the adversity required under Maine law.
-
Some Deeded Rights Recognized:
Several inland owners did have valid deeded easement rights over a path known as the “goat path,” shown on the 1882 Blackinton Plan, but only if their deeds post-dated the plan’s official recording in 1924. Earlier references did not suffice. The court found that those later references did create binding easements over the path—except in places where the path had been built over, which the court considered abandonment.
-
Beach Use Rights Upheld:
The court affirmed that inland owners with deeded rights to use the “beach” for “boating and bathing” may use the intertidal zones in front of all three waterfront parcels. The court rejected efforts to limit those rights to only a narrow area.
-
Deed Reformation Claims Denied:
Both the Gravisons and Edwardses sought to reform their deeds to change their property lines or remove plan references. The court denied these claims, ruling there was no clear evidence of mutual mistake between parties to the original conveyances.
Takeaway:
This case reaffirms that Maine courts require clear and convincing evidence to alter property rights—whether by prescription or deed reformation. At the same time, it upholds easement rights grounded in recorded plans and plain deed language. For landowners in coastal subdivisions, this decision highlights the enduring legal power of historic plans and long-standing documentation.
Produced by ChatGPT