Easements by Implication: Maine’s High Court Affirms Lakeside Access Rights in LeMay v. Anderson
In the landmark case LeMay v. Anderson, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court reaffirmed the doctrine of easement by implication, protecting property access rights when no express easement exists. The case offers a clear example of how longstanding use and necessity can give rise to a legally enforceable servitude—even decades after the original conveyance.
The Dispute
J. Robert and Margaret LeMay purchased lakeside property on Unity Pond (Lake Winnecook) that had no direct access to a public road—except via a private drive crossing the Andersons’ land. The LeMays sought a court declaration of their right to use that road, citing continuous use of the way by their predecessors dating back to 1961.
How the Dispute Arose
In 1961, the Cunninghams—then owners of a large parcel stretching from Route 9 to the lake—conveyed most of their land to their daughter and son-in-law but retained the shorefront portion for themselves. However, they did not include a written reservation for continued use of the existing road to access their retained cottage.
Despite this, the Cunninghams continued using the road without interruption. Later, their successors—the LeMays—acquired the shorefront parcel and sought to confirm their right to the road after the intervening land was sold to the Andersons.
The Legal Issues
The Court addressed two key arguments:
-
Was there a valid express easement?
No. The deed language from a later conveyance was found to create, at most, a non-assignable easement in gross (a personal right), not a transferrable interest that would benefit the LeMays.
-
Was there an easement by implication?
Yes. The Court found that:
-
The Cunninghams had used the road openly and continuously prior to dividing the land.
-
There was a unity of title at the time the road was used as access.
-
Access to the lakefront property was strictly necessary, as there was no evidence of alternative access from Route 9 without trespassing.
-
The Court emphasized that an easement by implication depends on the intent of the parties at the time of severance—not on future land acquisitions or theoretical access via boat or ice.
Key Takeaways
-
Implied easements can arise even without explicit language in a deed, particularly when access has been longstanding and necessary.
-
The test focuses on prior use, necessity, and the intent at the time the property was divided—not subsequent changes.
-
Easements implied by necessity are appurtenant, meaning they transfer automatically to future owners.
Why It Matters
This case is a valuable reminder that property rights don’t always hinge on written documents alone. Maine law recognizes the importance of historical use and necessity in real estate, especially in rural and waterfront settings. When buying property with limited access, it’s essential to assess both recorded and implied rights-of-way.
Produced by ChatGPT