Bell v. Town of Wells
510 A.2d 509, 1986 Me. LEXIS 796 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Maine, the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not bar a quiet title action brought by private landowners against the State to determine the scope of public rights in the intertidal zone, because under the Colonial Ordinance of 1641-47, the State does not hold title to these lands, making it a non-indispensable party to the suit.
Facts:
- The plaintiffs are owners of shore-front property in the Moody Beach area of Wells, Maine.
- The plaintiffs hold title to both the upland portion of their property (above the high water mark) and the intertidal zone (the land between the high and low water marks).
- The public has historically used the intertidal portion for fishing, fowling, and navigation.
- In recent years, members of the public have increasingly used the plaintiffs' property, including both the intertidal zone and the upland, for general recreational purposes beyond the traditionally permitted uses.
- These expanded uses have occurred over the plaintiffs' objections.
- The Town of Wells has engaged in actions supporting public recreational use, such as removing signs erected by the plaintiffs and failing to instruct police to protect the plaintiffs' property from such use.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, owners of shore-front property, filed quiet title actions in the Superior Court of York County against the Town of Wells, the State of Maine, and unnamed individual users.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment to confirm their title to the upland and to define the scope of public rights in the intertidal zone.
- The State and the Town filed a motion to dismiss the quiet title counts, arguing the actions were barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
- The Superior Court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the State had an interest in the property, making it an indispensable party and thus barring the suit under sovereign immunity.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of sovereign immunity bar quiet title actions brought by shore-front property owners against the State of Maine to determine the nature and scope of public rights on their upland and intertidal land?
Opinions:
Majority - Glassman, Justice
No. The doctrine of sovereign immunity does not bar these quiet title actions. Due to Maine's unique common law, derived from the Massachusetts Colonial Ordinance of 1641-47, title to the intertidal zone is presumptively held in fee simple by the owner of the adjoining upland property, not by the State. The public's right to use the intertidal zone for fishing, fowling, and navigation is a public easement, not an interest owned or held in trust by the State. Because the State does not hold title to the land in question, it is not an indispensable party to a quiet title action concerning that land. Therefore, sovereign immunity cannot be invoked to dismiss the suit, as the State's simple assertion of an interest is insufficient to bar litigation on the merits.
Analysis:
This decision is foundational for Maine property law, clarifying that private landowners can adjudicate the scope of public rights on their intertidal lands without being barred by sovereign immunity. It reaffirms the unique property regime established by the Colonial Ordinance, which grants private ownership of the intertidal zone, distinguishing Maine and Massachusetts from the majority of U.S. states where such land is held in public trust by the state. The ruling prevents the government from blocking quiet title actions merely by asserting an unproven interest, thereby ensuring a judicial forum for resolving complex property disputes between private owners and the public.
