Opinion ID: 3166759
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Location of the Public Easement10

Text: [¶25] The Edwardses next challenge the court’s conclusion that the Town’s easement extends over the way and cul-de-sac located on their property. They argue that the dedication petition plainly demonstrates McLoon’s intent to grant an easement over only the part of the road “abutting” his property, and that the court erred by considering evidence of McLoon’s intent extrinsic to the petition. [¶26] To prove a dedication, it must be clearly shown that the grantor intended to dedicate the property at issue for a public purpose. Town of Kittery v. MacKenzie, 2001 ME 170, ¶ 10, 785 A.2d 1251. The construction of a petition to 10 Though the Edwardses are time-barred from challenging the validity of the dedicatory description on statutory grounds, Rule 80B does not bar the Edwardses’ argument that that description was not intended to include the way and cul-de-sac. 13 dedicate an easement is ordinarily a matter of law. See Testa’s, Inc., 2014 ME 137, ¶ 11, 105 A.3d 1037. However, if the petition is ambiguous, its construction is a question of fact. See id. If the language of the petition is susceptible to more than one interpretation, it “must be read in the light of the circumstances surrounding its execution to effectuate its main end.” Callahan v. Ganneston Park Dev. Corp., 245 A.2d 274, 276 (Me. 1968) (quotation marks omitted). In such cases, “[t]he meaning to be discovered and applied is that which each party had reason to know would be given to the words by the other party.” Id. at 277 (quotation marks omitted). We will uphold the court’s determination regarding the parties’ intent unless it is clearly erroneous. Anchors v. Manter, 1998 ME 152, ¶ 16, 714 A.2d 134. [¶27] Here, the second page of the petition states, “We the undersigned, abutting property owners on Coopers Beach Road, are in agreement with having the Town of Owl’s Head accept the road as a public easement, without claim for damages.” McLoon’s signature under this language clearly demonstrates that he intended to grant the Town an easement over “Coopers Beach Road.” However, this language does not indicate the parties’ understanding as to the road’s location on the face of the earth. The significance that the parties would have attached to the term “abutter” and their understanding as to whether the road included the way and cul-de-sac cannot be determined by reading the petition in the abstract. 14 Contrary to the Edwardses’ contention, the petition is ambiguous and the court did not err in considering extrinsic evidence. [¶28] Competent evidence supports the court’s findings that (1) the Town had historically snowplowed and sanded Coopers Beach Road up to and including the way and cul-de-sac; (2) the petition was circulated after the Town announced its intent to cease maintaining private roads; and (3) McLoon was aware of the Town’s announcement and understood that by signing the petition he could secure the continued provision of Town plowing, but would give up the right to exclude others. The record also supports the court’s finding that, at the time of the dedication, the Town used the disputed way in the same manner that it used the entire road network that was formerly collectively called Coopers Beach Road. [¶29] That the road was dedicated to secure continued snowplowing by the Town and that the way and cul-de-sac had historically benefited from those services suggests that the way and cul-de-sac were to be included in the dedication. That McLoon signed the petition with awareness of the dedication’s purpose and consequences indicates that he intended to give up privacy in the way and cul-de-sac in exchange for the continued benefit of having the Town snowplow those areas. That the Town used the disputed way in a manner indistinguishable from its use of other parts of the Coopers Beach Road network also supports a 15 determination that the Town understood that Coopers Beach Road included the disputed way. [¶30] In sum, there was ample evidence to support the court’s finding that, at the time of the dedication, McLoon and the Town both understood “Coopers Beach Road” to include the way and cul-de-sac.11 Though the record also contains conflicting evidence, the court did not clearly err in finding that McLoon intended to grant the Town an easement over the way and cul-de-sac, and that the northern terminus of the public easement over “Coopers Beach Road” therefore includes the way and cul-de-sac located on the Edwardses’ property. See D’Angelo v. McNutt, 2005 ME 31, ¶ 6, 868 A.2d 239 (“[T]he trial court’s . . . findings of fact [are] reviewed for clear error and will be affirmed if there is competent evidence in the record to support the finding[s] even if the evidence might support alternative findings of fact.” (alteration omitted) (quotation marks omitted)). [¶31] Because the statutory validity of the dedicatory description is no longer open to challenge, the only issue is the location of the dedicated property. Discerning no error in the court’s interpretation of the dedication petition, we 11 This conclusion as to the Town’s understanding of the location of Coopers Beach Road is further supported by the tax map made available at the 1996 meeting, which is displayed supra ¶ 13. The record supports the court’s finding that that tax map had been marked by a selectman “to depict the location of the Cooper’s Beach Road dedication based on his understanding of the 1986 acceptance.” The map depicts a hand-drawn line running the length of Coopers Beach Road and extending over the way and cul-de-sac located on the Edwardses’ property. 16 affirm the conclusion that the 1986 dedication created a public easement that extends over the way and cul-de-sac located on the Edwardses’ land.12