North Maine Woods

Bangor Daily News:

The North Maine Woods, a 3.5-million-acre privately owned working forest, offers extensive recreational opportunities like hiking, camping, and paddling, drawing over 100,000 visitors annually. Managed by a nonprofit coalition of landowners since 1971, access is allowed through 19 gates with a small user fee, but the roads remain private and maintained solely by landowners.

Safety is a top priority, particularly around active logging operations. Logging trucks always have the right of way, and visitors must follow strict road rules: drive with headlights on, stay to the right, obey speed limits, and yield to working vehicles. Radios are recommended to monitor truck traffic, and visitors should carry spare tires due to rough conditions and lack of cell service.

Landowners stress respect for the land and roads to preserve access for future use. The access fee does not fund road maintenance, and misuse could result in road closures. Overall, the North Maine Woods is a successful model of cooperative land use, balancing forestry with public recreation.

S.D. Warren v. Vernon

Prescriptive Easements and Herbicide Use in the Maine Woods: Lessons from S.D. Warren Co. v. Vernon

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in S.D. Warren Co. v. Vernon clarifies two key legal doctrines: the elements required to establish a private prescriptive easement, and the limits of that easement’s use—especially when evolving land use brings in new concerns, like transporting hazardous materials.

The Dispute

Michael Vernon owned a parcel of land in Brighton Plantation, Maine. A dirt road—formerly a public way—ran through his land and provided access to property owned by S.D. Warren Company, a commercial forestry operation. Although the road had been discontinued as a town way in 1927, Warren continued using it for decades.

Tensions escalated in 1990 when Vernon noticed Warren trucks carrying herbicide drums. After Vernon blocked the road with his pickup, Warren filed suit, claiming both private and public prescriptive easement rights.

What the Court Found

The trial court held that:

Warren had a valid private prescriptive easement over the road;
But Warren could not use the road to transport herbicides;
And the general public also had a prescriptive right to use the road.

Both parties appealed.

Key Holdings on Appeal

✅

Private Prescriptive Easement Upheld

The Law Court affirmed Warren’s right to use the road. The evidence showed:

Continuous use for 20+ years, dating back to the 1930s;
Open and notorious use, including by Warren employees and contractors;
Adverse use, not dependent on permission from Vernon or his predecessors.

Even intermittent use was deemed sufficient because it reflected the typical pattern of a forestry road.

❌

No Right to a Public Easement

The Court vacated the lower court’s finding of a public easement. Sporadic hunting and recreational use by individuals wasn’t enough to establish a prescriptive right for the general public. In Maine, recreational use of “wild and uncultivated land” is presumed permissive unless clearly shown otherwise.

❌

Herbicide Ban Overturned

The Court ruled that the trial court applied the wrong legal test in restricting herbicide transport. The scope of a prescriptive easement is defined by the use established during the prescriptive period. Because Warren’s historic use involved commercial logging operations—known to involve hazardous materials—the transport of herbicides did not impose any greater burden on Vernon’s land.

Legal Takeaways

Prescriptive easements can arise from intermittent but consistent commercial use over time.
The scope of a prescriptive easement grows out of historical use—but reasonable evolutions (like modern forestry tools) are allowed.
Public rights over private land require stricter proof than private easements; occasional hunting access won’t suffice.
Courts will not block a lawful use just because it makes the servient owner uncomfortable—unless the use imposes an unreasonable new burden.

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:

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.
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.
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