This document is an opinion from the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine in the case of The case concerns a dispute over an easement on waterfront property in Naples, Maine.

Here’s a summary of the key points:

• Background: The plaintiffs (Chase, et al.) own inland lots on Thompson’s Point, while the defendants (Eastman, et al.) own waterfront property on the Songo Bayou, part of which was designated as a “reservation” area in original subdivision plans from 1931 and 1932. The plaintiffs’ deeds grant them the right to use these “reservation” areas in common with others for access to the waterfront.
• Dispute: The Eastmans acquired the reservation area and built cottages on it. A dispute arose when the Eastmans attempted to restrict the plaintiffs’ access and use of the property. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the Eastmans from blocking access and to define the scope of their easement. The Eastmans counterclaimed, arguing the easement didn’t exist, was abandoned, or was limited.
• Superior Court Findings: The Superior Court found that:
  • The plaintiffs have an easement for waterfront access and recreational activities (walking, swimming, fishing, docking, etc.).
  • The placement of landfill extended the easement to the new shoreline.
  • The plaintiffs had abandoned a portion of their easement by not objecting to the construction of the cottages. Initially, the court found a 40-foot wide easement remaining, but later reduced it to 15 feet after a view of the property.
  • The court also enjoined the plaintiffs from placing additional docks or parking vehicles on the residential portions of the Eastmans’ property due to unreasonable interference with reciprocal rights.
• Appeals: Both parties appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment.
• Key Affirmations by the Supreme Judicial Court:
  • It was not error to find the plaintiffs have an easement for all purposes reasonably related to waterfront enjoyment.
  • The extension of the waterfront by landfill did not terminate the easement.
  • The court properly concluded that the plaintiffs’ failure to object to the cottage construction evidenced an intent to abandon that portion of the easement. This was based on the principle that an easement can be abandoned by unequivocal acts inconsistent with the assertion of rights, such as not objecting to permanent structures that obstruct the easement.
  • The reduction of the easement width from 40 feet to 15 feet was within the trial court’s discretion, as the 40-foot width was inconsistent with the finding that the plaintiffs had abandoned the residential portion.
  • The amendment to the counterclaim regarding additional docks and vehicle parking was properly allowed under M.R.Civ.P. 15, as it addressed an ongoing controversy and was within the court’s discretion. The court’s limitation on these uses was also affirmed.

Summary by Gemini