The Manters appealed a lower court’s judgment in favor of Mark Anchors regarding a right-of-way known as the Woods Road, which crosses the Manters’ land (lot B) and provides access to Cook’s Island in Hales Pond, owned by Anchors.

Here’s a summary of the court’s decision:

• Right-of-Way Enforceability: The Manters argued that Anchors couldn’t enforce the right-of-way because the reservation of the right-of-way to Robert Ingham (Anchors’s predecessor in title) in the deed to Merrill (Manters’ predecessor) occurred after the conveyance of the servient estate. The court disagreed, finding that because both the conveyance of the easement to Robert Ingham and the deed to Merrill were executed on the same day, the grantor’s intention to provide a right-of-way for her son should be given effect. The court concluded the easement is enforceable by Anchors.
• Easement Appurtenant vs. In Gross: The Manters contended the right-of-way was an easement “in gross” (personal to Robert Ingham and not assignable) because Hales Pond, not the island, was the dominant estate and the pond belongs to the State. The court rejected this, stating that easements are presumed to be appurtenant (running with the land) if they are a useful adjunct to the land, and there’s nothing to show a personal right was intended. The court found that extrinsic evidence showed the right-of-way was used as access to Cook’s Island, adding value to it, and its use had been recognized. The court affirmed that the easement is appurtenant to Cook’s Island.
• Scope and Location of the Right-of-Way:
  • Motor Vehicle Use: The Manters argued the Woods Road was mainly a footpath and motor vehicle use was limited. The court found substantial evidence, including testimony from various parties and evidence of past vehicle use, supported the conclusion that motor vehicle use was a reasonable use of the easement. The court upheld the finding that the right-of-way permits foot or motor vehicle access.
  • Location: The Manters claimed the grant was too vague to determine its location. The court found there was ample evidence that the Woods Road, running from Young Road to Hales Pond, was precisely the road referred to in the original deeds, and its location was clearly identifiable.
• Damages: The Manters also challenged the award of compensatory ($400) and punitive ($500) damages. The court found sufficient evidence to support the compensatory damages (motel, meals, gas costs incurred by Anchors due to blocked access) and that the Manters’ conduct was outrageous and malicious, justifying the punitive damages.
• Counterclaim: The court also affirmed the judgment against the Manters on their counterclaim.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

Summary by Gemini