Opinion ID: 1509747
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Town's title

Text: [¶ 10] The Town argued that the court erred in granting the Eatons' motion for summary judgment dismissing the Town's claim of record title to the subject premises. We review the Superior Court's entry of summary judgment for errors of law, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment was entered. Rodrigue v. Rodrigue, 1997 ME 99, ¶ 8, 694 A.2d 924, 926 (citation omitted). Summary judgment will be upheld if the evidence produced demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See id. (citation omitted). [¶ 11] The Town argued in its counterclaim that it holds record title to the subject premises through two sources. First, it contends that in 1643, Thomas Gorges, acting as agent for Lord Proprietor of Maine Sir Ferdinando Gorges, granted John Wheelright, Henry Boade, and Edward Rishworth full and absolute power to allott, bound and sett forth any lotts or bounds vnto any man that shall come to inhabitt in their Plantacon.... the bounds of the said Plantacon to begin from the northeast side of Oegungig Riuer vnto the southwest side of Kinnibuncke and to runne eight miles vp into the countrey .... The Town argues that Wheelwright, Boade and Rishworth were the original proprietors of the Town of Wells and received the grant in that capacity. They argue that as the feudal concept of property ownership gave way to fee ownership, this grant of authority ... had the effect of conveying fee title to the land described to the Town of Wells. [¶ 12] Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Town and assuming for purposes of summary judgment that Messrs. Wheelright, Boade, and Rishworth were the original proprietors and that proprietors obtained both the right of soil as well as jurisdiction, see Montgomery v. Ives, 21 Miss. 161 (13 Smedes & Marshall 161) (Err. & App.1849) (stating that whereas in royal provinces, the crown retained both the right of soil and jurisdiction, in the proprietary governments, the proprietors acquired the right of soil, as well as jurisdiction, from a grant), the trial court correctly concluded that based on those facts the Town as a matter of law did not prove its title because the proprietors did not convey any interest to the Town by deed. See Howard v. Hutchinson, 10 Me. 335 (1833), cited in Glidden v. Belden, 684 A.2d 1306 (Me.1996). [¶ 13] Both Howard, involving a prerevolutionary grant, and Glidden, involving a post-revolutionary re-write of a grant, involved the issue of who owned the rights in rangeways. Howard was a trespass action brought against the surveyor for the Town of Sidney for cutting down and carrying away trees from a rangeway. See Howard, 10 Me. at 336. The Kennebec Proprietors in 1761 had laid out the tract of land now situated within the limits of the Town of Sidney and divided it into lots. See id. at 347. The plan represented three ranges with vacant spaces reserved between the ranges called rangeways. See id. The Court concluded with respect to the Town's rights in the rangeways arising out of the original laying out, division, and sale of lots as follows: Whatever rights might have been acquired by the owners of adjoining lots, it is clear that the town of Sidney acquired no right of soil in these reservations. The fee either remained in the original proprietors, or passed with the grant of the lots adjoining. Id. In Glidden, a more recent case, we were also dealing with who owned the rangeways in a plan laid out by the Kennebec Proprietors in the Town of China. See Glidden, 684 A.2d at 1309-10. Citing the above quoted language in Howard, we stated that the Court in Howard also held that ownership of the rangeways remains with the Proprietors unless they expressly convey their interest therein or the public-atlarge acquires an easement over them by the laying out of a road by the municipality pursuant to the enabling statute or by user. Id. at 1313 (emphasis added). [¶ 14] The Town argues Howard is distinguishable from and thus not instructive in this case. In this case Wheelright, Boade and Rishworth were the original proprietors obtaining their grant directly from Thomas Gorges, the Deputy Governor of the Province of Maine. In Howard and Glidden, the Kennebec Proprietors derived their interest not from the Governor of the Province of Maine, but through a deed from the heirs of Boston merchants who owned the premises. See Glidden v. Belden, 684 A.2d 1306, 1309 n .1 (Me.1996) (citing RONALD F. BANKS, MAINE BECOMES A STATE 47 (1970)). The Boston merchants acquired the property when the grant was sold to them by William Bradford and a group of pilgrims, who were granted the premises in 1629 by the Council for New England. See RONALD F. BANKS, MAINE BECOMES A STATE 47 (1970). [3] The Town contends that in Howard the court did not discuss the capacity of the proprietors and their relationship to the Town of Sidney whereas in this case the Town presented facts that explained the means by which the land granted to proprietors came to be held by the Town in fee. The only fact they present, however, is that their expert witness stated in an affidavit that [a]s the feudal concept of property ownership gave way to fee ownership, this grant of authority from Thomas Gorges to Messrs. Wheelright, Boade and Rishworth had the effect of conveying fee title to the land described to the Town of Wells. This statement, however, is an assertion of law for which the Town offered no legal authority. Nor did it offer any underlying factual basis to support the bald and conclusory statement by its expert. [¶ 15] Contrary to this legal conclusion, historical sources reveal the following: The Kennebec Proprietors are not to be compared with the mere proprietors of New England townships, although their powers and rights before the law were substantially the same. GORDON E. KERSHAW, THE KENNEBECK PROPRIETORS 1749-1775 at xiv (1975). Proprietors of New England towns have been defined as: the original grantees or purchasers of a tract of land, usually a township, which they and their heirs, assigns, or successors, together with those whom they chose to admit to their number, held in common ownership. They enjoyed the absolute ownership and exclusive control over such tract or tracts of land granted to them and were responsible collectively for the improvement of the new plantation. More specifically, they were responsible for inducing and enlisting settlers and new comers, for locating home lots and dwelling houses, for building highways and streets.... In other words, they constituted the nucleus of the newly settled community and at first they controlled the whole machinery of the town's life, both political and economic. ROY H. AKAGI, PH.D., THE TOWN PROPRIETORS OF THE NEW ENGLAND COLONIES at 3 (1924). Although seventeenth century proprietors and eighteenth century proprietors differed, even in the seventeenth century, there was already some differentiation between the territorial and the political jurisdiction of the town[,] and the proprietors alone claimed the former function. Id. at 289; see also id. at 12, 20-21, 33, 46. From the beginning it was the proprietors, not the town, who had the complete jurisdiction over the town lands. Id. at 289. [¶ 16] Further, as used above, the proprietors of a town also changed. In Wells, the original proprietors were the above-mentioned John Wheelright, Henry Boade and Edward Rishworth of Wells. See EDWARD E. BOURNE, LL.D., THE HISTORY OF WELLS AND KENNEBUNK at 10 (1875) [HISTORY OF WELLS]. Thereafter, however, Massachusetts took control and on July 5, 1653, granted to the Town of Wells corporate powers, providing, inter alia, that Wells shall be a township, every inhabitant shall enjoy all theire just propaietyes, titles, and intersts in the howses and lands which they doe possess, whither by graunt of the toune possession, or of the former Genneral Courts, and all the present inhabitants of Wells shall be freemen. Id. at 32. Once the Town was incorporated, the ownership and control of the common lands went through a period of uncertainty. Bourne reported: [O]n the 20th of March, 1715-16, [those who had taken up their residence] voted themselves to be owners in common of all the ungranted land.... This vote was the introduction of the proprietary of the town, and from this period they and their heirs or grantees assumed the title of the soil, and made grants according to their pleasure. To manage safely and judiciously their interests in the township, it was necessary that a proper organization should be effected, and on the 14th of May following, a meeting of the proprietors was called.... Thus the town, as such, was divested of all control of the lands from this date, and all legislation in regard to them and all grants were thenceforth at the will of the proprietors. HISTORY OF WELLS at 652-53. After years of laying out lands and making grants, the proprietors voted to divide the land and assign it by lottery to the persons owning legal rights in the common, and on February 1, 1773, with 112 proprietors, a proprietors' meeting was held for the purpose of drawing the lottery. See id. at 656-58. A small amount of land still remained in the proprietors, another committee was formed to divide the commons, and in 1812 it was voted that `the committee for dividing the commons, be directed to cause all the lands already surveyed to be divided into lots, and to prepare for drawing the same.' Id. at 660. Bourne noted, however, that [t]hese instructions do not appear to be have been complied with.... [T]he few little ungranted tracts of land remaining in the different parts of the town are either tenantless, or have been taken up by some persons who have thought it best not to permit them to run to waste. Id. [¶ 17] Therefore, even though the proprietors that eventually led to the Town of Wells were closer to the royal grant than the Kennebec Proprietors, the factual distinction does not affect the law concerning the ownership of the remaining land. As with the Kennebec Proprietors and the Towns of Sidney and China, the Wells proprietors were empowered to divide and allot the lands, but it was Massachusetts that controlled the incorporation of the Town of Wells. Also, as can be seen by subsequent town history, there was always a question of who owned the remaining land and the townspeople years after the town was established voted to take control of the common land. Thus, the Town's argument that title passed when the feudal concept evolved into a fee system of ownership is neither consistent with our case law nor supported by the history of proprietors in the colonies in general or the town history in particular. Thus, the trial court was correct that as a matter of law the Town, without an express grant from the proprietors, derived no title. [¶ 18] Second, the Town contends that in 1720 the Town received a deed from Symond Epps, in behalf of himself, and Daniel Epps, administrators of Major Daniel Epps, deceased, and also in behalf of John Wadleigh through a letter of attorney, conveying all their interest received in deed to John Wadleigh from Thomas Chabinock Nampscossah. Thomas Chabinock was the sagamore (leader) of the native people in that area, and in 1649 devised to John Wadleigh all that the sd Sagamores Lands, with his whoole right Title & Interest, Called by the name of Nampscoscocke, bounding betweene Noguncoth [later known as Oqunquit] & Kenebunke [Rivers], & vp as hy as Cape Porpus falls. ... Likewise, the trial court looked to the above-referenced 1715-16 town meeting and conclude[d] that as a matter of law the interest which the Town of Wells obtained in 1720 under these instruments was not intended to be nor was it a fee interest in the land described by the instruments. As the trial court noted, by 1720, significant portions of the Town were already owned by individuals, which the Town acknowledged, and thus the intent of the parties to the deed could not have been to convey to the Town the same properties. See Calthorpe v. Abrahamson, 441 A.2d 284, 286 (Me.1982) (stating that the court in interpreting the language of deed, which is a question of law, seeks to ascertain the intention of the parties to the deed). Therefore, the court did not err in concluding as a matter of law that the 1720 deed did not transfer title to the Town.