Day v. McEwen, 385 A.2d 790

I. Right to Unobstructed View

  • The Days claimed a right to an unobstructed view of Merriconeag Sound, tracing this right to restrictive language in two deeds from Florence P. Ensign (Mrs. Day’s aunt and predecessor in title) to the McEwens in 1952 and 1958.
  • These deeds reserved an “uninterrupted and unobstructed view” for Mrs. Ensign’s retained land and included a covenant where the McEwens promised not to “plant or permit any trees, bushes or shrubbery on their said land, so as to obstruct the view.”
  • The Superior Court found that certain trees on the McEwens’ land obstructed the Days’ view but dismissed the claim, deeming the covenant unenforceable.
  • The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, concluding that the original parties intended to impose an affirmative duty on the McEwens to prevent or remove natural growth obstructing the view. The court found the covenant enforceable against the McEwens, who were the original promisors and fully aware of its terms and purpose. The covenant was clear, unambiguous, and considered part of the consideration for the land.
  • The court reversed the Superior Court’s decision on this issue and remanded the case for an order granting injunctive relief, specifically instructing the McEwens to cut back cherry trees and possibly some alders obstructing the view within the defined viewing arc.

II. Title to Pumphouse Lot

  • The Days also sought relief for trespass, claiming title to a small trapezoidal lot containing a pumphouse, tank, and well, which the McEwens had built upon.
  • While the Superior Court ruled that legal title had vested in Mrs. Day, it granted the McEwens’ counterclaim for deed reformation, finding a mutual mistake of fact.
  • Evidence showed Mrs. Ensign originally retained the lot and easements to supply water to her cottage, intended to convey these interests to the Beckwiths (who bought her cottage in 1960), and that the Beckwiths subsequently intended to convey their interest in the lot and easements to the McEwens.
  • The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Superior Court’s decision to reform the deeds to reflect the original parties’ intent regarding the pumphouse lot and its associated easements, as the evidence clearly supported a finding of mutual mistake. The court also clarified that the Days’ claim to a water pipe easement lacked merit, as it had been legally released to the McEwens.

Summary by Gemini