Fitanides v. Holman
310 A.2d 65, 1973 Me. LEXIS 349 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A reservation in a deed attempting to create an easement in favor of a third party who is a stranger to the deed is ineffective. Furthermore, an easement that has been extinguished by the merger of the dominant and servient estates is not revived upon their subsequent separation unless a new easement is properly granted or reserved.
Facts:
- In 1865, Horace Phillips acquired ownership of a parcel of land (the 'servient estate') while he already owned the adjacent parcel that the claimed right-of-way was meant to benefit (the 'dominant estate').
- This resulted in both parcels coming under the common ownership of Horace Phillips.
- Later in 1865, Horace Phillips sold the servient estate to Frank Seavey, with the deed merely making reference to a prior deed that had once described the right-of-way.
- In 1870, a subsequent owner of the servient estate, Joseph Chase, conveyed the property to Maria Smith.
- The 1870 deed from Chase to Smith contained a clause explicitly 'excepting and reserving' a right-of-way for Horace Phillips, who was neither the grantor nor the grantee in this transaction.
- The subsequent owners of the dominant estate (the Plaintiffs) and their predecessors made only sporadic use of the claimed path for activities such as wood cutting, picnicking, and occasionally moving cattle.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Superior Court seeking equitable relief to establish a right-of-way across the Defendants' land.
- Defendants filed a counterclaim.
- The case was heard by a Justice of the Superior Court in a bench trial (without a jury).
- The Superior Court Justice entered judgment for the Defendants, finding no valid easement by deed or by prescription.
- The Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the denial of their claim 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 a reservation in a deed create a valid easement for a third party who is a stranger to that deed, particularly when any prior easement was extinguished by the merger of the properties under a single owner?
Opinions:
Majority - Weatherbee, J.
No. A reservation in a deed is ineffective to create an easement for a stranger to the instrument, and an easement extinguished by merger is not revived upon separation of the parcels without a new, proper grant. The court reasoned that any easement that may have existed was extinguished by the doctrine of merger in 1865 when Horace Phillips came to own both the dominant and servient estates. A person cannot have an easement over their own land. Phillips' subsequent sale of the servient estate failed to revive the easement because the mere reference to a prior deed was insufficient; a new grant was required. Furthermore, the 1870 deed from Chase to Smith, which attempted to reserve an easement for Phillips, failed because Phillips was a 'stranger to the deed.' Under the common law, a grantor cannot reserve an interest in property for a third party. Finally, the court held that the Plaintiffs failed to establish an easement by prescription because their use of the path was merely 'sporadic' and did not meet the requirement of continuous use for at least twenty years.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms two traditional common law property rules: the extinguishment of easements by merger and the prohibition against reserving an easement for a 'stranger to the deed.' The ruling underscores the importance of precise deed drafting, as reliance on historical language or legally invalid reservations can result in the forfeiture of property rights. This case illustrates that once an easement is extinguished by merger, it is gone permanently unless affirmatively and correctly re-created in a subsequent conveyance. It also highlights the high bar for establishing a prescriptive easement, clarifying that occasional, intermittent use does not satisfy the critical element of continuity.
