Murch v. Nash, 2004 ME 139, 861 A.2d 645

Island Access Dispute Clarifies Easement Law in Maine: Murch v. Nash

The Maine Law Court’s decision in Murch v. Nash provides a thoughtful examination of how private easements by implication and by necessity are treated under state law—particularly in remote or coastal settings like Great Cranberry Island. This case is a valuable reminder that historical plans and long-standing land use can create enforceable rights, even if modern access is challenging or unconventional.

The Property Dispute

Bonnie Sue Nash built a summer home on an oceanfront parcel accessible only by water or by crossing a private road over Robert Murch’s land. That road—dating back to an 1878 probate division—had two segments: the “Stanley Road” and the “Bunker Road,” which together connected Nash’s land to a public road on the island.

Murch filed suit to block Nash from using the road. The trial court agreed, concluding Nash had no legal right to cross Murch’s land. Nash appealed.

Easement by Implication (Based on Estoppel)

The Law Court reversed in part, holding that Nash did have a private easement by implication—also known as an easement “based on estoppel”—extending over the Stanley Road portion. This was because:

  • Her deed traced back to an 1878 probate plan (the Hamor Plan), which showed the road.

  • That plan included rights-of-way appurtenant to her lot.

  • The road was actually constructed and has existed since at least 1887.

Thus, the Court found that Nash had acquired an implied private right-of-way based on that historic plan, despite the lower court’s failure to fully analyze that claim.

No Easement by Necessity

However, the Court rejected Nash’s argument that she also had an easement by necessity over the Bunker Road (the section that would connect the Stanley Road to the public road). Because her property had navigable water access—even if tide-dependent and inconvenient—it was not considered “landlocked” under Maine law. The Court emphasized that water access, even if not always ideal, generally defeats a claim for an easement by necessity.

Practical Impact

The judgment was vacated in part and affirmed in part. Nash was found to have a private easement across the Stanley Road segment only, not the full road to the public way.

Key Takeaways

  • Subdivision plans, even from the 1800s, can create private easements by implication that survive today.

  • Navigable water access—even if limited by tides or seasons—typically bars an easement by necessity claim in Maine.

  • Courts will uphold historical land use rights when supported by recorded plans, established use, and physical evidence of longstanding roads.

Produced by ChatGPT