Opinion ID: 2362105
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the Easement was Terminated

Text: [¶ 42] The next question, then, is whether the easement has been terminated. An easement can be extinguished in five ways: (1) by expiration; (2) by an act of the dominant owner (either by release or abandonment); (3) by the act of the servient owner (by prescription or conveyance to a bona fide purchaser without notice); (4) by conduct of both parties (merger or estoppel); or (5) by eminent domain, mortgage, foreclosure, or tax sale. Great Cove Boat Club v. Bureau of Public Lands, 672 A.2d 91, 94 (Me.1996) (citing 3 RICHARD R. POWELL, THE LAW OF REAL PROPERTY ¶¶ 421-426 (1992)). In this case, the parties focus on the second, fourth, and fifth methods for terminating easements. i. Equitable Estoppel [¶ 43] The trial court found that there was insufficient evidence that the doctrine of estoppel should be applied because of the silence of Trakas, who was unaware of the easement, during the construction by the DesJardinses of a drive-way over a portion of the likely location of the easement. The DesJardinses argue that the trial court erred by so ruling because Trakas, Casavant's predecessor in title, through inaction and silence, caused the DesJardinses to materially alter their position to their detriment. [¶ 44] The doctrine of equitable estoppel bars the assertion of the truth by one whose misleading conduct has induced another to act to his detriment in reliance on what is untrue. Longley, 1998 ME 142, ¶ 12, 713 A.2d at 943 (quoting Anderson v. Comm'r of Dep't of Human Servs., 489 A.2d 1094, 1099 (Me. 1985)). Equitable estoppel precludes an owner from asserting his legal title when, by his own action or inaction, he has caused another to act or to alter her position to her detriment. Id. Intent to mislead is not required  equitable estoppel may be applied when a party remains silent when it is his duty to speak, as where inquiries are made of him ... or when circumstances are such that would `impel an honest man to speak.' Id. (quotations omitted). Equitable estoppel should be carefully and sparingly applied. Id. We review a court's application of equitable estoppel for clear error. Id. [¶ 45] Given the facts of this case, the doctrine of equitable estoppel does not apply. The DesJardinses are not innocent purchasers entitled to application of the doctrine; they are charged with constructive notice of the easement because the easement has been recorded in conveyances of their servient property up until 1972. See Hendley v. Overstreet, 253 Ga. 136, 318 S.E.2d 54, 55 (1984) (finding that easement continues to burden property owner's parcel because property owners are not innocent purchasers without notice; recorded deeds and restrictive covenants are constructive notice). [¶ 46] The right and burden relative to an appurtenant easement respectively pass to grantees of the dominant and servient tenements, assuming the grantees of the servient tenement have actual or constructive notice of the easement. O'Neill, 527 A.2d at 323 (citing LeMay, 397 A.2d at 989). Before purchasing real estate, a purchaser should clear up the doubts which apparently hang upon the title, by making due inquiry and investigation. Waxler v. Waxler, 1997 ME 190, ¶ 11, 699 A.2d 1161, 1164. [¶ 47] The easement is of record. Had the DesJardinses made due inquiry and investigation, they would have found that an easement existed where they built their driveway. The DesJardinses' problems, consequently, are self-made; they should not be allowed to invoke an equitable doctrine when they themselves have failed to act in a responsible manner. See Hamm v. Hamm, 584 A.2d 59, 61 (Me.1990) (stating, it is an elementary principle of equity jurisprudence that `whenever a party, who as actor seeks to set the judicial machinery in motion and obtain some remedy, has violated conscience or good faith, or other equitable principle in his prior conduct, then the doors of the court will be shut against him in limine; the court will refuse to interfere on his behalf, to acknowledge his right or to award him any remedy'). The trial court did not err in rejecting the DesJardinses' estoppel claim. ii. Title Argument [¶ 48] The DesJardinses next assert that the trial court erred in concluding that the Casavant property benefitted from the easement reserved by Nellie Tasker in 1915. They assert that, because Casavant's property title was obtained through the City and not from Nellie Tasker or a Tasker heir, any rights to the easement have long been extinguished. In other words, they appear to be arguing that, because Casavant acquired title from a party who purchased the property in a tax sale, the easement has been extinguished. [¶ 49] Whether a tax sale can extinguish an easement is an issue of first impression in Maine. Although there is no unanimity among the various jurisdictions on this question, a substantial number of states have found that a tax sale does not extinguish an easement appurtenant where its value or burden is included in the assessed value of the properties at issue. 3 RICHARD R. POWELL, POWELL ON PROPERTY ¶ 426 n. 18 (1992). See also Hearn v. Autumn Woods Office Park Prop. Owners Ass'n, 757 So.2d 155, 162 (Miss.2000) (holding [t]his Court joins the majority of jurisdictions that hold that an easement appurtenant ... is not extinguished because of a tax sale, if that easement is properly assessed and included in the value of the property; owner of servient property failed to overcome presumption that value of easement was included in assessment of lot that he acquired by tax deed); Flax v. Smith, 20 Mass.App.Ct. 149, 479 N.E.2d 183, 185 (Mass.1985) (stating servient estate that was sold in a tax sale was burdened by implied easement for water and sewer lines where all parcels had been in common ownership prior to taking of servient parcel for nonpayment of taxes, use of residences on such parcel required that water and sewer services be supplied through lines to the street, and reasonable necessity for continued use of existing line was shown); Ross v. Franko, 139 Ohio St. 395, 40 N.E.2d 664, 665 (1942) (holding that tax sale does not ordinarily divest easement charged on property sold). Maine is a state that includes the value of non-possessory interests in the tax valuation of property. See Central Maine Power Co. v. Town of Turner, 128 Me. 486, 148 A. 799 (1930) (holding power company held mill privileges for dam and power development that could be considered in determining value of its property). Accordingly, we adopt the rationale put forth by the above-cited cases and conclude that an easement is not extinguished upon a tax sale. iii. Abandonment [¶ 50] The DesJardinses contend that the trial court committed a clear error by ruling that the easement has not been abandoned. The effectiveness of an abandonment depends on a finding of intention. Great Cove Boat Club, 672 A.2d at 94 (citation omitted). The requisite intent to abandon an easement may be demonstrated by unequivocal acts which are decisive and conclusive and indicate a clear intent to extinguish the easement. Id.; see also Phillips v. Gregg, 628 A.2d 151, 153 (Me.1993) (stating [t]o prove intent to abandon, a party must show `unequivocal acts inconsistent with the further assertion of rights associated with the existence of the easement .... The acts asserted as evidence of abandonment must be decisive and conclusive and thereby indicate a clear intent to abandon the easement'). [¶ 51] The party alleging abandonment of a right-of-way has the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, either: (1) a history of nonuse coupled with an act or omission evincing a clear intention to abandon, or (2) adverse possession by the servient estate. Canadian Nat'l Ry. v. Sprague, 609 A.2d 1175, 1179 (Me. 1992). For the purposes of the first method, the acts asserted as evidence of abandonment must be decisive and conclusive ... thereby indicat[ing] a clear intent to abandon the easement. Witt v. McKenna, 600 A.2d 105, 106 (Me.1991) Id. (quoting Chase v. Eastman, 563 A.2d 1099, 1102 (Me.1989)). To meet this burden, the evidence must establish each factual element to be highly probable. Id. (citation omitted). Although we have recognized that the acquiescence to the erection of a permanent barrier on a right-of-way can satisfy the burden, nonuse alone, regardless of the duration, is insufficient to extinguish a right-of-way. Id. (citing Chase, 563 A.2d at 1102 (failure to object to the construction of a cottage partly in the path of a right-of-way constituted partial abandonment of an easement)); Fitzpatrick v. Boston & Maine R.R., 84 Me. 33, 24 A. 432 (1891) (failure to object to erection of houses of a permanent character obstructing easement supported finding that easement was abandoned). [¶ 52] Although the DesJardinses' driveway is arguably a permanent structure, it is not a decisive act that permanently obstructs the right-of-way, compelling an objection for the purposes of abandonment. See Phillips, 628 A.2d at 153 (stating [f]ailure to object to a decisive act on the part of the servient estate may constitute an omission evincing a clear intent to abandon). Instead, it arguably facilitates the use of at least a portion of the right-of-way. The DesJardinses have not met their burden of showing that the easement has been abandoned. Their claim, therefore, under a theory of abandonment fails. iv. Vehicular Use [¶ 53] Pursuant to the DesJardinses' post-judgment motion, the trial court amended the judgment to provide that traffic is permitted over the easement and that tenant parking in the easement would constitute an obstruction. In so finding, the DesJardinses contend that the trial court committed a clear error. The construction of language creating an easement is a question of law, which we review de novo. Anchors v. Manter, 1998 ME 152, ¶ 16, 714 A.2d 134, 139 (citing Fine Line, Inc. v. Blake, 677 A.2d 1061, 1063 (Me.1996)); see also Crispin v. Town of Scarborough, 1999 ME 112, ¶ 30, 736 A.2d 241, 250 (same). If the language of the deed is unambiguous, the scope of a party's easement rights is determined solely from that language. Crispin, ¶ 30, 736 A.2d at 250 (quoting Rancourt v. Town of Glenburn, 635 A.2d 964, 965 (Me.1993)). If the language of the deed is ambiguous, however, extrinsic evidence may be considered to determine the intent of the parties. Anchors, ¶ 16, 714 A.2d at 139. [¶ 54] Here, neither the specific scope of the right-of-way nor its precise length is known. Id. In such a case, the intention of the parties creating the easement is a question of fact. Id. at 139-40. We will uphold the trial court's determination regarding the objective manifestation of the parties' intent unless it is clearly erroneous. Id. at 140 (quoting Guild v. Hinman, 1997 ME 120, ¶ 8, 695 A.2d 1190, 1193). [¶ 55] The evidence shows that deliveries of fertilizer were made to the yard at the back of the barn and that a vehicle of some sort would have also been needed to maintain the outhouse that was located there. Vehicular use, therefore, is not beyond the scope of the original use of the easement, and the court did not err in permitting the use of vehicles on the right-of-way. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.