Davis v. Bruk

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
411 A.2d 660 (1980)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The location of an easement that has been established, either by the language of the creating instrument or by the subsequent acts of the parties, cannot be changed by the owner of the servient estate without the consent of the owner of the dominant estate.

Facts:

Edward Davis, Helena Davis, and Eva C. Campbell (plaintiffs) own a parcel of land (the dominant estate) adjacent to land owned by Mary Bruk (the defendant and owner of the servient estate).
The plaintiffs possess a deeded easement for a right of way across Bruk's land to access the Town Road.
While the deeds did not specify the exact location of the right of way, its physical location was established on the ground in 1896 and has not changed since.
Bruk purchased her property in 1963, aware of the existing right of way.
The right of way passes close to Bruk's home, which she claimed created a dangerous and hazardous condition due to dust and traffic.
Bruk sought to relocate the right of way to a different path on her property to alleviate these issues, but the plaintiffs did not consent to the relocation.
The plaintiffs also had an easement to use a spring on Bruk's property, and Bruk filled in one of the springs.
The plaintiffs requested permission to pave the gravel right of way to prevent it from washing away.

Procedural Posture:

Davis and the other plaintiffs sued Bruk in the Superior Court (Sagadahoc County), seeking an injunction to stop her from obstructing their right of way.
Bruk filed a counterclaim, seeking damages and asking the court to approve her proposed relocation of the right of way.
The Superior Court issued an initial judgment that clarified the easement but denied Bruk's request for relocation.
Bruk filed a motion to amend the judgment, proposing a second relocation plan.
After a hearing, the Superior Court amended its judgment and approved Bruk's second proposal to relocate the right of way.
The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the amended judgment to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. The defendant, Bruk, as appellee, filed a cross-appeal on a separate issue.

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 owner of a servient estate have the right to unilaterally relocate an established easement without the consent of the owner of the dominant estate?

Opinions:

Majority - Dufresne, Active Retired Justice

No, the owner of a servient estate does not have the right to unilaterally relocate an established easement without the consent of the owner of the dominant estate. The court follows the majority rule that once the location of an expressly deeded easement is established, it may not be changed by either party without mutual consent. The court rejected the minority view that would permit a servient owner to relocate an easement if the new location is not more burdensome, reasoning that such a rule would introduce considerable uncertainty into land ownership, proliferate litigation, and deprive the dominant estate owner of the security of their property rights. Citing its precedent in Gore v. Fitch, the court affirmed that a conveyance of a right of way is absolute and cannot be unilaterally altered by the grantor. The court also held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to damages for the filled-in spring because they failed to prove the easement attached to that specific spring, and that they were not permitted to pave the right of way because it would constitute a material change and add a burden to the servient estate not contemplated in the original grant.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the traditional, rigid common law approach to easements, prioritizing certainty and the stability of property rights over the convenience of the servient landowner. The court explicitly rejects a more modern, flexible rule of reasonableness that some jurisdictions have adopted, which would allow for relocation under certain equitable conditions. By doing so, the court solidifies the principle in Maine that an easement is a fixed, unchangeable property right, not merely a functional arrangement that can be altered for the servient owner's benefit, even if the dominant owner suffers no practical harm. This holding provides strong protection for easement holders but limits the ability of servient landowners to adapt their property to changing needs.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Davis v. Bruk (1980)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"