DECISION & JUDGMENT
This
matter came before the court for a bench trial during the
July civil trial term. Subsequent to trial, the parties
supplemented the record with the submission of the deposition
transcript from Michael Benjamin, The parties then submitted
written closing arguments and reply memoranda for the
court's further consideration.
The
issues to be addressed at trial and resolved by die court
included the location of boundary lines between the adjacent
property of the parties; express easement rights; declaratory
judgment claims regarding the same; and trespass and damage
to property.[1] After consideration of the testimony and
evidence presented, and the arguments of counsel, the court
finds as follows:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The
plaintiffs, Dyer and Beverly Wadsworth, own a residential
parcel of land on Tunic Lake Road in Sullivan Maine, which
they acquired in 2011. Their parcel, along with an adjacent
lot, was originally created in 1967 by a deed from Oscar
Havey to Clarence Bevis. The defendant, Morton Havey, is the
current owner of the remaining adjoining parcel.
The
Wadsworths' deed, which references the original 1967
conveyance creating the lots, ties the property boundaries to
the location of the "northerly sideline of the public
highway" now known as Tunk Lake Road, Louis Edward Pare,
the surveyor the plaintiffs hired to survey their property,
and who later provided testimony during the trial, determined
the road references to be ambiguous, and based his opinions
of the lot boundaries upon a 1987 Charles Simpson survey, and
Mr. Simpson's location of several pre-existing iron
monuments. The surveyor the defendant hired, Adam Robinson,
testified that, in his opinion, reference to the north
sideline of the road in the relevant deeds, was unambiguous,
and referred to the north side of the Tunk Lake Road public
right-of-way. The Robinson opinion of the boundary locations
regarding the plaintiffs' parcel was very similar to the
Pare and Simpson surveys, but actually placed the northern
boundary line of the plaintiffs' parcel in a more
favorable location to the plaintiffs than the plaintiffs'
own expert's opinion regarding that same boundary line,
The defendant's own opinion regarding the location of the
boundaries of the plaintiffs' parcel relies upon a theory
that the starting point call from the deed is in the center
of the Tunk Lake Road. The court finds the evidence does not
support such a conclusion.
Defendant Havey owns unimproved acreage to the north and east
of the plaintiffs' lot, from which he harvests
blueberries, and from which he has harvested timber on one
occasion in 2000.[2] The properties share boundaries on two
sides, Mr. Havey's property is benefited by a 1967
reserved right-of-way over the Wadsworth lot, that is
described "as a right-of-way for all purposes of a way
over the road as now used and existing" running
approximately north and south between Tunic Lake Road and the
defendants land. The deed creating the right-of-way, and
subsequent conveyances containing the same easement, did not
designate a specific width, either at its opening onto the
highway or at any point throughout the length of the right of
way. However, the evidence presented at trial suggests that
the 1967 right-of-way road location was consistent with the
bounds of the current road.
Over
the years, the right-of-way has been used seasonally (or
every other season) by a company Mr. Haley has contracted
with to harvest blueberries. For crop maintenance and
harvesting, the existing road has been easily accessed by
flatbed and other non-articulated trucks, some of which towed
trailers and excavating equipment. The existing right-of-way
has been adequate for that purpose, From time to time the
right-of-way has been used to harvest timber on Mr.
Havey's land. Defendant's forester, Michael Benjamin,
did not describe any difficulty moving equipment or wood
products on the right-of-way when the timber was last
harvested in 2000, The mere fact that the equipment currently
available for harvesting purposes is significantly larger
than what would have been available in 1967 does not entitle
the defendant to dramatically increase the burden on the
servient estate in order to more easily accommodate the
larger equipment.
The
Court finds that the boundary lines of the Plaintiffs'
parcel and the right-of-way boundaries are as described
within the referenced Pare survey attached and incorporated
herein as Plaintiffs Exhibit 1.
Beginning
around 2012, the defendant, Mr. Havey, either personally or
at his direction, began mowing, removing trees, shrubs and a
wildflower garden, and disturbing personal property south of
the shared boundary line on the northern border of the
plaintiffs' parcel. The court concludes that sometime in
2015, Mr. Havey, as part of his mowing activities, removed
nearly all of the iron pipes and pins marking the shared
boundary line along the north side of the Wadsworth parcel.
These monuments were visible and in place when the property
line was surveyed in 1987 and in 2011, but disappeared after
the plaintiffs undertook their landscaping activities near
the designated right-of-way location. The incursions by Mr.
Havey have deprived the plaintiffs of large wildflower
gardens that stood between their home and the defendants
blueberry fields. The defendant has caused debris to be
strewn on the plaintiffs property and damaged trees that had
grown on their property. The court finds that in order to
restore their property, plaintiffs have spent $2500 on
surveying costs, and will need to spend $700 in additional
surveyor costs to replace missing boundary markers.
Additional expenses in the amount of $500 will be required to
restore the mown wildflower gardens.
ANALYSIS
1.
Plaintiffs' Claims
Trespass
Under
Maine law, common-law trespass has occurred when
"irrespective of whether he thereby causes harm to any
legally protected interest of the other, if he intentionally
enters land in the possession of the other, or causes a thing
or a third person to do so," Restatement (Second) of
Torts §158(a)(1965). "[T]he owner of an easement
who exceeds his rights either in the manner or extent of its
use is guilty of trespass, Beckwith v. Rossi, 157
Me. 532, 537 (1961).
In this
case, the defendant owns a right-of-way interest over the
road as it existed in 1967, and nothing more. Mr, Havey's
repeated entry onto the plaintiffs' land, without
permission, to mow outside of the deeded right-of-way
constitutes trespass. He damaged the land when he and/or his
agents removed the survey markers and monuments, and
destroyed the vegetation without the owners permission. This
trespass, although intentional, does not, for the ...