Opinion ID: 3166759
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Validity of the Dedication Process

Text: [¶20] We begin our analysis of the status of the way and cul-de-sac by considering the operative legal consequences of the Town’s vote to accept a dedicated public easement over “Coopers Beach Road.” 7 The Edwardses challenge the court’s conclusion that the 1986 petition specifically described the location of the dedicated property as required by 23 M.R.S. § 3025. The Town contends that the Edwardses’ challenge to the dedication’s statutory sufficiency is time-barred by M.R. Civ. P. 80B. We review the interpretation of statutes and the 6 The court also concluded that the Scotts do not have prescriptive rights to use the Edwardses’ beach, but that they do have the right to use the Edwardses’ beach to the extent allowed by Maine common law. Neither the Scotts nor the Edwardses challenge these conclusions on appeal. 7 Pursuant to 23 M.R.S. § 3025 (2014), “Unless specifically provided by the municipality, title to property accepted for highway purposes after December 31, 1976 shall be in fee simple.” Here, the minutes for the special meeting held by the Town of Owls Head on August 19, 1986, reflect that the Town specifically voted to accept the dedication of a public easement over Coopers Beach Road, rather than fee simple title to the road. 10 Maine Rules of Civil Procedure de novo as a matter of law. Gorham v. Androscoggin Cty., 2011 ME 63, ¶ 9, 21 A.3d 115; J.A. Rapaport Family L.P. v. City of Brewer, 2005 ME 89, ¶ 4, 877 A.2d 1077. [¶21] Title 23 M.R.S. § 3025 imposes descriptive requirements 8 on a dedication for “highway purposes,” which purposes are defined to include “use as a town way[9] and those things incidental to the . . . maintenance . . . of town ways,” 23 M.R.S. § 3021(1) (2014). A dedication for highway purposes must be formally manifested by a writing or subdivision plot plan that describes the property to be dedicated for public use. 23 M.R.S. § 3025. When a dedication is manifested in writing, the writing must specifically describe the location and the property interest that is the subject of the dedicatory offer. Id. Municipal acceptance of a dedication may be accomplished by an affirmative vote on an article in a town meeting warrant. Vachon v. Town of Lisbon, 295 A.2d 255, 260 (Me. 1972). A person aggrieved by a municipality’s acceptance of a 8 With added emphasis, 23 M.R.S. § 3025 provides in relevant part: No property or interests therein may be dedicated for highway purposes unless the owner of such property or interest has filed with the municipal officers a petition . . . or other writing specifically describing the property or interest and its location, and stating that the owner voluntarily offers to transfer such interests to the municipality without claim for damages, or has filed in the registry of deeds an approved subdivision plot plan which describes property to be appropriated for public use. 9 “Town way” is defined as, among other things, an “area or strip of land designated and held by a municipality for the passage and use of the general public by motor vehicle.” 23 M.R.S. § 3021(3) (2014). 11 dedication may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to Rule 80B. See 23 M.R.S. § 3029. Because section 3029 contains no time limit, an appeal from an acceptance accomplished by vote must be brought within thirty days after the vote. See M.R. Civ. P. 80B(b). [¶22] The record here demonstrates that the Town held a meeting in August 1986, during which residents accepted by vote a public easement over “Coopers Beach Road.” Any person aggrieved by the Town’s acceptance of the dedication had thirty days from the date of the vote within which to appeal. The deadline for appealing the Town’s acceptance thus expired in September 1986. [¶23] The Edwardses contend that their claims are timely because they seek declaratory relief as to the location of the Town’s easement over Coopers Beach Road. However, the Edwardses also plainly challenge the description of the proposed dedication as inconsistent with statutory requirements. “Such challenges are the essence of matters that must be brought pursuant to Rule 80B to question whether the particular action of a municipal[ity] . . . is consistent with the requirements of law.” Sold, Inc. v. Town of Gorham, 2005 ME 24, ¶ 13, 868 A.2d 172. Rule 80B is the sole means for seeking Superior Court review of the legality of an act by a municipal body, “whether such review is specifically authorized by statute or is otherwise available by law.” Id. (quotation marks 12 omitted). Moreover, “a declaratory judgment action cannot be used to revive a [Rule 80B claim] that is otherwise barred by the passage of time.” Id. ¶ 10. [¶24] Because no appeal was taken within the time prescribed by Rule 80B, the validity of the 1986 dedication cannot be challenged now. See Whalen v. Town of Livermore, 588 A.2d 319, 321 n.3 (Me. 1991); Goucher v. Hanson, 537 A.2d 1142, 1142-43 (Me. 1988); Town of Fayette v. Manter, 528 A.2d 887, 889 (Me. 1987). The Town’s votes must therefore “be presumed to have the operative consequences apparently intended”: to accept an easement over “Coopers Beach Road.” Manter, 528 A.2d at 889; see also Goucher, 537 A.2d at 1143.