Edwards v. Blackman

Maine Court Upholds Public and Private Beach Rights in Coastal Road Dispute

In Edwards v. Blackman, the Maine Superior Court settled a long-standing dispute over access to a road and beach in the Cooper’s Beach neighborhood of Owls Head. The case involved waterfront landowners, Darlene and Lewis Edwards, who sought to block neighbors and the Town from using a road and beach area on their property. The decision has important implications for public easements and private beach rights in Maine’s coastal subdivisions.

Key Takeaways:

1. Road is a Public Easement

The court ruled that the road running across the Edwardses’ land is a public easement road. This resulted from a 1986 town meeting vote where residents—including the Edwardses’ predecessor—formally dedicated “Cooper’s Beach Road” to public use, and the Town accepted. Despite arguments that the road was not clearly described or that the claim was too late to challenge, the court held the Town had validly accepted the dedication.

2. Neighbors Have Record Beach Rights

The neighbors (the Blackman and Scott families) proved they had deeded rights to use the beach—specifically the intertidal zone—for boating and bathing. These rights originated in a 1924 deed that granted access to “the beach” as part of a subdivision plan. Although later deeds didn’t repeat that language, the court found the rights ran with the land and remained valid.

3. No Prescriptive Easements Over Beach

The court rejected the neighbors’ claims to broader prescriptive rights based on longtime beach use. It found the use was “permissive,” not “adverse,” due to the close-knit, friendly nature of the community. Under Maine law, social, recreational use of unposted coastal property does not establish a prescriptive easement.

Why This Matters:

This decision confirms the legal strength of public easement dedications and underscores the importance of subdivision plans and historical deed language. It also clarifies that long-standing neighborhood customs—no matter how familiar—won’t always translate into enforceable property rights.

 

Produced by ChatGPT

Almeder v. Town of Kennebunkport, 217 A.3d 1111 (Me. 2019)

This 2019 Maine Supreme Judicial Court case concerns a long-standing dispute over the ownership of Goose Rocks Beach in Kennebunkport. The Beachfront Owners, who own property adjacent to the beach, claim their parcels extend to the mean low water mark, asserting rights over the intertidal zone and dry sand. The Town of Kennebunkport, along with the State of Maine and other interested parties, asserts public rights and title to these areas.

The case has a complex procedural history, including a prior appeal (Almeder I) that remanded the matter for a trial on title claims after initial rulings on public use easements (prescription, custom, public trust doctrine) were vacated.

In the second bench trial, the Superior Court determined that only one Beachfront Owner held title to a portion of the beach, concluding that the Town of Kennebunkport holds title to the dry sand and beach in front of the remaining twenty-two properties. This ownership was found to derive from the original Town proprietors’ ownership of common land.

On appeal, the Beachfront Owners argued that the trial court erred in:

  1. Relying on the Town’s expert surveyor: The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s reliance, finding the surveyor’s testimony relevant and reliable given his expertise.
  2. Interpreting “seawall” and establishing it as the seaward boundary: The court explicitly defined “seawall” as an elevated area of land or embankment landward of the beach, acting as a barrier to the sea. It affirmed the trial court’s finding that the seawall, either natural or man-made, constitutes the seaward boundary of the Beachfront Owners’ properties, not extending beyond the high water mark. This interpretation was found consistent with historical deeds and precedent.
  3. Concluding the Town held title to the disputed beach areas: The court found that the Beachfront Owners’ original deeds did not include a “call to the water” (e.g., “to the sea” or “to the ocean”) that would trigger the presumption of ownership to the low water mark under the Colonial Ordinance of 1641. Instead, their deeds consistently referenced the seawall or bank as the boundary, thus excluding the beach. The court also rejected the argument that later deeds or decades of record title could overcome the clear intent of historical grantors to exclude the beach.

Regarding the Town’s title claim, the appellate court traced the historical land ownership from royal charters through Massachusetts Colony actions, including the Danforth Deed of 1684. This deed granted land in Cape Porpus (later Kennebunkport) to trustees for the benefit of the inhabitants, confirming existing ownership and granting common, undivided lands. The court affirmed that this deed was not a direct conveyance to the Town outright. However, it concluded that when the proprietary (the entity responsible for managing and dividing common lands) dissolved in the late eighteenth century without granting out the disputed beach property, title passed to the Town of Kennebunkport “for the benefit of the public.” The court relied on historical context and precedent suggesting that ungranted common lands, once the proprietary’s purpose was fulfilled, would vest in the municipal corporation for public use.

In conclusion, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, recognizing the Town of Kennebunkport’s title to the disputed portions of Goose Rocks Beach seaward of the seawall for the benefit of the public.

Summary by Gemini