Bayberry Cove Childrens' Land Trust v. Town of Steuben , 65 A.3d 1188 ( 2013 )

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2013 ME 35
Docket: Was-12-129
Argued: October 26, 2012
Decided: March 21, 2013
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, and
JABAR, JJ.
BAYBERRY COVE CHILDRENS’ LAND TRUST et al.
v.
TOWN OF STEUBEN
MEAD, J.
[¶1] The Town of Steuben appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior
Court (Washington County, Cuddy, J.), declaring that the Bayberry Cove
Childrens’ [sic] Land Trust (Trust) and Paul and Pauline West own all rights, title,
and interest in a piece of real property known as the Town Landing Road located in
the Town of Steuben. The Town argues that the court erred in rejecting its
contention that it acquired a public way by prescriptive use when the court
concluded that (1) the Town failed to use the property continuously for the
statutory period, (2) the people who used the land were separable from the public
generally, and (3) the Town failed to demonstrate a claim of right adverse to the
owners. The Town also asserts that the court erred as a matter of law in
2
considering the state of mind of the prescriptive users. We find the continuous use
issue dispositive and affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
[¶2] A short, narrow road located in the Town of Steuben connects the town
ways of Rogers Point Road and Warf Road with a sandy beach along Gouldsboro
Bay. A ramp situated at the end of this road provides vehicles access to the beach
and Gouldsboro Bay.
[¶3] The road, known as the Town Landing Road, is bordered to the west by
property owned by the Trust. The Trust obtained title to the property in 1989 by
warranty deed conveyed from Trustee Edward Atkinson and his wife Brenda
Koskinen. Town Landing Road is bordered to the east by property owned by Paul
and Pauline West and another property. The Wests acquired their property from
Pauline’s parents; the property has been in her family for over sixty years.
[¶4] Beginning in the 1980s, Paul West initiated a series of communications
with the Town about his concerns regarding the use of the road. Between 1999
and 2010, West grew increasingly concerned about the activities of approximately
seven commercial fishermen using the Town Landing Road ramp because they
were leaving equipment and trash on the beach and using toxic chemicals to wash
their boats. In 2010, West placed a sailboat on the road, thus blocking access to
the beach; the Town instructed him to remove it during the summer of 2011.
3
Shortly afterward, the Trust filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment as to
the ownership of the road, which the Wests later joined. After a bench trial, the
court declared that the Trust and Wests owned Town Landing Road free and clear
of any interests claimed by the Town on behalf of the public in general. The Town
filed a motion for additional findings of fact; the court granted the motion and
issued further findings. The court denied the Town’s supplemental motion for
findings of fact. This appeal followed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶5] Because the Town filed a motion for findings of fact pursuant to M.R.
Civ. P. 52(a), “we review the original findings and any additional findings made in
response to the motion for findings to determine if they are sufficient, as a matter
of law, to support the result and if they are supported by the evidence in the
record.” Theberge v. Theberge, 2010 ME 132, ¶ 17, 9 A.3d 809 (quotation marks
omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
[¶6] It is well established that the public may acquire an easement by
prescription, and that “[t]he requirements for the creation of a public way by
prescriptive use parallel those for the creation of a prescriptive easement.”
Stickney v. City of Saco, 2001 ME 69, ¶ 16, 770 A.2d 592. As the party claiming
the creation of a public way by prescription, the Town has the burden of proving
4
“continuous use for at least 20 years under a claim of right adverse to the owner,
with his knowledge and acquiescence, or a use so open, notorious, visible, and
uninterrupted that knowledge and acquiescence will be presumed.” Shadan v.
Town of Skowhegan, 1997 ME 187, ¶ 6, 700 A.2d 245 (quoting Town of
Manchester v. Augusta Country Club, 477 A.2d 1124, 1130 (Me. 1984)). In
addition to proving the elements of a prescriptive easement, the Town bears an
additional burden to prove that “the use of the road [was] by people who are
inseparable from the public generally . . . .” See Stickney, 2001 ME 69, ¶ 18,
770 A.2d 592.
[¶7] The trial court expressly found that the Town failed to prove
continuous use for the prescriptive period: “[T]he evidence of use demonstrated by
the Town of Steuben was at best fragmented in terms of time and duration.” The
trial record includes the testimony of Pauline and Paul West, both of whom have
extensive knowledge of the history and use of the property. It has been in
Pauline’s family for many decades and her memory of its use extends back more
than six decades. She testified that no road existed between the northeast corner of
her lot and the beach until the mid-1960s. Prior to that time, the stretch between
the corner and the beach was covered with alders.
[¶8] Both Paul and Pauline West testified that there were separate and
significant periods of time in the decades between the 1960s and the 1990s when
5
the road was not used in any way. The Wests did not limit their testimony to
non-fishermen; their testimony was that no use was made. The Town offered
considerable evidence to the contrary, but the court’s findings are entitled to
deference on appeal as long as evidence exists in the record to support them. See
Theberge, 2010 ME 132, ¶ 17, 9 A.3d 809.1
[¶9] The Town argues that the court failed to consider the Town’s
maintenance of the road in its continuous use analysis. Although there was
testimony regarding snow removal by the Town, there was no testimony about how
often the road was plowed and inconsistent evidence concerning what portion of
the road was plowed. Testimony concerning other maintenance on the road was
similarly inconsistent. Even if public maintenance did occur, that fact alone does
not mandate a finding of a public way. See Town of Manchester, 477 A.2d at
1130-31 (stating that although the town performed maintenance on a road it did not
acquire a right-of-way by prescription). At best, the testimony established that the
Town’s maintenance of the road was “minor and sporadic,” which is insufficient to
1
The trial court’s initial decision appears to commingle the “continuous use” issue with the
“inseparable from the public generally” issue because the court’s original order seems to have excluded
use by the commercial fishermen from its consideration of the prescriptive period. However, in its
findings of fact of February 9, 2012, the court states, inter alia: “The Court finds as a fact that the
evidence of use demonstrated by the Town of Steuben was at best fragmented in terms of time and
duration and that the users were separable from the general public of Steuben citizens,” thus confirming
that the court considered the two issues separately. Both the original and additional findings are reviewed
to determine whether there is evidence in the record to support them. See Theberge v. Theberge,
2010 ME 132, ¶ 17, 9 A.3d 809. Any ambiguity in the court’s original findings was clarified in its
additional findings of fact.
6
persuade us to conclude that the court erred in failing to find that the maintenance
was continuous. See Comber v. Plantation of Dennistown, 398 A.2d 376, 378
(Me. 1979). The record does not support the Town’s assertion that the trial court
failed to consider the evidence concerning the Town’s efforts at maintaining the
road; indeed, the evidence is fully congruous with the trial court’s findings.
[¶10] Because we conclude that the trial court’s findings are supported by
the evidentiary record, and based on these findings the Town failed to sustain its
burden to prove continuous use of the road for the required period, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
On the briefs:
William H. Dale, Esq., and Mark A. Bower, Esq., Jensen Baird Gardner &
Henry, Portland, for appellant Town of Steuben
Eric N. Columber, Esq., Roy, Beardsley, Williams & Granger, LLC,
Ellsworth, for appellee Bayberry Cove Childrens’ Land Trust
Stephen W. Hanscom, Esq., Crandall, Hanscom & Collins, P.A., Rockland,
for appellees Paul West and Pauline West
7
At oral argument:
William H. Dale, Esq., for appellant Town of Steuben
Eric N. Columber, Esq., for appellee Bayberry Cove Childrens’ Land Trust
Stephen W. Hanscom, Esq., for appellees Paul West and Pauline West
Washington County Superior Court docket number CV-2011-17
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY