Dale Henderson Logging, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 48 A.3d 233 (Me. 2012)

Here’s a summary of the key points:

  • Parties Involved: Dale Henderson Logging, Inc. (DHL) and Oak Leaf Realty, Inc. (OLR) are appealing summary judgments in favor of the Department of Transportation (DOT).
  • Dispute over Corridor Ownership:
    • DHL and OLR claim that the Maine Central Railroad Company (predecessor in title to the State/DOT) held only a railroad easement, which was abandoned before being conveyed to the State. Therefore, they argue DOT owns nothing, and they own the land in fee simple.
    • DOT contends it owns a fee simple interest in the corridor, or at least a valid easement.
  • Washington County (DHL Property): The court found that DOT holds an easement that has not been abandoned. The original deeds for DHL’s property contained a restriction (“This conveyance of right of way is for Railroad purposes only”), which, under the Short Form Deeds Act (SFDA), clearly indicated an intent to convey only an easement, not a fee simple.
  • Hancock County (OLR Property): The court found that DOT owns the corridor in fee simple. The deeds for OLR’s property did not contain similar restrictions, and under the SFDA, without clear language to the contrary within the deed, a fee simple interest is presumed to be conveyed.
  • Abandonment Issue: The court concluded that the easement in Washington County was not abandoned due to the application of former 23 M.R.S.A. § 4207(3) (An Act to Protect Railroad Rights-of-way). This statute prevented abandonment if DOT showed interest in eventual restoration of rail service, which the court found ample evidence for (e.g., bond issue approval, negotiations to acquire, maintenance efforts).
  • Fence Covenants (OLR Property): OLR sought to compel DOT to build and maintain a fence along a portion of the corridor. The court ruled that the covenants requiring a fence were not enforceable in equity.
    • An original 1897 deed included a covenant for a fence.
    • A 1929 release deed from the original grantors’ heirs to Maine Central Railroad Company included a new obligation to build a public siding, seemingly in place of the fence.
    • Regardless of whether the 1929 release was a substituted contract or an accord and satisfaction, the court found that the obligations (both for the siding and the original fence) were no longer reasonable or enforceable given decades of non-maintenance, absence of rail traffic, and the current circumstances.

Conclusion: The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the Superior Court’s judgments, concluding that DOT holds an easement (not abandoned) in the Washington County portion and a fee simple in the Hancock County portion, and that the fence covenants are not enforceable.

Summary by Gemini