Opinion ID: 2059055
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Tacking

Text: To establish an easement by prescription, a party must prove that the elements of prescriptive use have continued for a period of at least twenty years. 14 M.R.S.A. § 812. The general rule of law is that successive periods of use may be added or tacked together in order to satisfy the prescriptive period when privity exists between the users. 3 R. Powell & P. Rohan, The Law of Real Property ¶ 413 at 34-133 (1979); 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and Licenses § 58 (1966). Maine law recognizes the use of tacking as a method to meet the twenty year requirement of prescriptive use. See Benner v. Sherman, Me., 371 A.2d 420, 421 (1977) (evidence sufficient to establish the use of the road by plaintiffs and their predecessors for a period in excess of twenty years); Cole v. Bradbury, 86 Me. 380, 383, 29 A. 1097, 1098 (1894) (adverse use of the water of an artificial aqueduct is deemed uninterrupted for the purpose of establishing the prescriptive period when it is continued from ancestor to heirs and from seller to buyer); Blanchard v. Moulton, 63 Me. 434, 436-37 (1873). In the instant case, the plaintiff did not acquire his interest in the dominant estate until 1972 and thus, his own use since that time could not satisfy the requisite period of twenty years. The defendant contends that the plaintiff did not attempt at trial to tack the use of his predecessors in title to his own use. Because the trial court looked to use by other landowners of the way to establish the prescriptive period, when these owners were not shown by direct evidence to be in privity with the plaintiff, the defendant asserts that the lower court misapplied the concept of tacking and thereby committed an error of law requiring reversal. To support his position, the defendant points to the lower court's statement in its findings of fact that allegedly indicates a reliance upon the use of property owners not in privity with the plaintiff to establish the prescriptive period. The defendant also notes the court's comment that Blackmer's use of the road as a child was insufficient by itself to establish a prescriptive easement. [2] Had the court made these statements while making specific findings on the issue of tacking, the defendant's argument might be meritorious. Here, the trial court did make some findings of fact although none were specifically directed toward the issue of tacking. The parties, however, did not request that the court make findings as they are entitled to under M.R.Civ.P. 52(a). When no findings of fact are made, it is assumed on appeal that the trial court found for the prevailing party on all factual issues necessarily involved in the decision and such assumed findings will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Harmon v. Emerson, Me., 425 A.2d 978, 981 (1981); Bangor Spiritualist Church Inc. v. Littlefield, Me., 330 A.2d 793, 794 (1975). The same standard controls when the parties fail to request findings on an issue not addressed by findings made by the lower court on its own motion. See State v. Michael Z., Me., 427 A.2d 476, 478 (1981). At trial, Blackmer testified that he purchased his property from his aunt and that his aunt also owned property next to his. He further stated that his aunt acquired her property from his grandmother in 1965 and that his grandmother purchased the land in 1925. Blackmer's mother testified that her husband's parents began living in the area in 1925 and that their property was right next to that which is owned by the plaintiff. Mrs. Blackmer also recalled using the roadway to visit her in-laws in the 1930's and other testimony of record indicates long-term use of the roadway by landowners in the area. From this testimony, the trial court could have appropriately inferred that the lot currently owned by Blackmer was part of a larger parcel of land owned by Blackmer's aunt and grandparents. Since the record clearly indicates use of the way to gain access to this larger parcel, the trial court could have concluded the way was used not only by Blackmer but also by his aunt and grandparents, Blackmer's predecessors-in-title. In light of this evidence, we do not find clearly erroneous the Superior Court's implicit finding that the requisite period of prescriptive use was satisfied by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title. Thus, we cannot conclude that the trial judge misconstrued the applicable law in finding the required period of prescriptive use through tacking.