Jean Dupuis v. Stanley G. Ellingwood
166 A.3d 112, 2017 ME 132, 2017 WL 2773934 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner seeking to extinguish an easement by adverse possession fails to establish the 'claim of right' element when their actions, such as seeking release deeds from the easement holders, demonstrate a recognition of and subordination to the easement holders' superior rights.
Facts:
- In 1969, Stanley and Sylvia Ellingwood acquired several lots in a development, and their deed granted them the right to use a 100-foot 'private beach area.'
- In 1996, Jean Dupuis purchased an unnumbered lot that constituted part of this 'Beach Area.'
- In 2000, Dupuis purchased a second adjacent lot, giving him title to the entire 'Beach Area.'
- The deed for Dupuis's 2000 purchase explicitly stated that the conveyance was 'subject to rights, if any, others may have to use the beach area.'
- Dupuis made various improvements to the property, including building structures on a portion of it.
- At one point, Dupuis attempted to obtain release deeds from his neighbors, including an unsuccessful attempt with the Ellingwoods, to clear their easement rights from his property's title.
Procedural Posture:
- Jean Dupuis filed a complaint against Stanley and Sylvia Ellingwood in the Maine Superior Court, a state trial court.
- Dupuis sought a declaratory judgment to establish his ownership of a 'Beach Area' and to declare the Ellingwoods' easement rights extinguished.
- After a non-jury (bench) trial, the Superior Court entered a judgment largely in favor of the Ellingwoods.
- The trial court declared that the Ellingwoods retained their express easement rights, except for the limited area where structures had been built, which was deemed abandoned.
- Dupuis, as the appellant, 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 a property owner extinguish an express easement by adverse possession when his own actions, including having notice of the easement in his deed and attempting to obtain release deeds from the easement holders, demonstrate recognition of their rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Gorman, J.
No. A property owner does not extinguish an express easement by adverse possession when his actions demonstrate that he is not possessing the property 'under a claim of right.' The court held that Dupuis failed to prove two necessary elements to extinguish the Ellingwoods' easement. First, regarding abandonment, while the easement was extinguished on the portion where structures were built (since the Ellingwoods' failure to object showed an intent to abandon that specific part), it was not extinguished on the remaining shorefront. Mere non-use is insufficient, and evidence showed the Ellingwoods' son had used the area until at least 2006. Second, and more critically, Dupuis's adverse possession claim failed because he did not possess the easement 'under a claim of right.' The language in his 2000 deed put him on notice of others' rights, and his attempts to obtain release deeds from neighbors, including the Ellingwoods, constituted an acknowledgement of their superior rights, which is inconsistent with a hostile claim of exclusive ownership.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the high bar for extinguishing an express easement through adverse possession. It clarifies that a landowner's subjective knowledge and actions are critical in evaluating the 'claim of right' element. By treating the landowner's attempt to obtain release deeds as evidence against his adverse possession claim, the court establishes that actions taken to clear title can paradoxically defeat the hostility requirement. This case serves as a cautionary precedent for property owners, showing that their efforts to resolve title issues can be interpreted as a recognition of others' rights, thereby preventing an adverse possession claim from succeeding.
