Cedar Beach/Cedar Island Supporters, Inc. v. Gables Real Estate LLC
2016 Me. LEXIS 124, 145 A.3d 1024, 2016 ME 114 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a public prescriptive easement for recreational use, claimants must overcome the presumption of permissive use with sufficient evidence of continuous adverse use; isolated incidents of hostility are insufficient, and a single act of nonacquiescence by the owner or an easement holder can interrupt the prescriptive period.
Facts:
- From 1926 to 1957, Eugene McCarty owned Cedar Beach Road and permitted the public to walk on it to access nearby beaches, but installed a chain to prevent vehicular traffic.
- After McCarty's death, Julia Sturtevant and Meredith Starbranch acquired the road in 1961.
- Beginning in the 1960s, public use of the road for access to beach parties resulted in littering on the road and complaints from property owners.
- Sometime between 1978 and 1980, the Haley family, who held a deeded appurtenant easement over the road, erected a chain-link fence across it.
- Within days of its erection, Scott Allen, a member of the public, drove a pickup truck through the fence, destroying it.
- The Perrys acquired the road in 1982 and in 1987 posted a statutory notice of their intent to prevent the acquisition of a public right-of-way.
- The Abrahamsons acquired the property in 1998 and, after generally permitting public use for years, blocked the road on Labor Day 2011, precipitating the legal action.
Procedural Posture:
- Members of the public (claimants) filed an action in the Maine Superior Court (trial court) against the owners of Cedar Beach Road, seeking a declaratory judgment that the public had acquired a prescriptive easement.
- Following a three-day bench trial, the Superior Court found in favor of the claimants and entered a judgment declaring the existence of a public prescriptive easement.
- Gables Real Estate LLC, the current owner of the property and defendant, appealed the Superior Court's judgment to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (the state's highest court).
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 public acquire a prescriptive easement over a private road when the evidence of adverse use consists primarily of littering, parties on an adjacent property, and a single instance of removing a fence, and where an appurtenant easement holder had previously erected that fence to block access?
Opinions:
Majority - Jabar, J.
No, the public does not acquire a prescriptive easement under these circumstances. The claimants failed to rebut the presumption that public recreational use of private land is permissive. The evidence of adversity—littering, parties on adjacent beaches, and a single act of fence removal—was insufficient to demonstrate a continuous claim of right hostile to the owner's interests. The court reasoned that littering is not an act of ownership, and adverse activities on the adjacent beaches do not establish adversity on the road itself. Citing 'Lyons', the court held that one or two incidents of hostility over a decades-long period are insufficient to establish adversity. Furthermore, the trial court erred by discounting the Haley family's erection of a fence. As holders of an appurtenant easement, the Haleys had the right to protect their interest, and their act of putting up the fence constituted nonacquiescence, which is sufficient to interrupt the twenty-year prescriptive period, thereby defeating the public's claim.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the presumption of permissive use for public recreational access on private land in Maine, making it more difficult for the public to establish prescriptive easements. It clarifies that the threshold for proving 'adversity' is high, requiring more than isolated or minor hostile acts. The ruling also establishes an important precedent that an act of nonacquiescence by an appurtenant easement holder, not just the fee owner, is legally sufficient to interrupt the prescriptive period and defeat a claim. This protects both landowners and easement holders from losing rights due to public use and may encourage them to continue allowing recreational access without fear of losing property rights.
