Opinion ID: 3181497
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Activities Permitted by the Beach Easements

Text: [¶61] The trial court construed the neighboring property owners’ rights to “use of the beach for boating and bathing” “to convey an intention to use the beach for reasonable recreational purposes that are conventionally associated with that type of area.” The court made this determination as a matter of law, and was not called upon to consider the factual question of what specific activities would be incidental to the rights expressly granted. See N. Sebago Shores, LLC v. Mazzaglia, 2007 ME 81, ¶ 17, 926 A.2d 728. The court instead considered, as a matter of law, the evident recreational purposes of the development shown by the plan, and construed the beach rights granted by reference to that plan to include the rights to engage in reasonable recreational activities that are typically engaged in on a beach. [¶62] The Blackinton Plan indicates that the Perry Parcel was divided into “cottage lots,” and shows numbered lots located near the Rockland Harbor. The deeds granting “use of the beach for bathing and boating purposes” refer to the plan. Construing de novo the language of the deed clauses granting rights in the 33 beach, in light of the plan to which the deeds refer, we conclude that Cora intended to convey to her grantees the right to use the beach for recreational activities reasonably related to bathing and boating. See Mill Pond Condo. Ass’n v. Manalio, 2006 ME 135, ¶ 6, 910 A.2d 392 (indicating that “the holder of an easement may only exercise the rights granted in a reasonable manner”). To the extent that limitation was not clear from the trial court’s judgment, we clarify the judgment to reflect that the neighbors’ beach rights are limited to recreational activities that are reasonably related to bathing and boating.11 The entry is: Judgment vacated to the extent that it declares Bolan and Lawrence the holders of deeded easements over the Edwardses’ intertidal area. Judgment clarified to reflect that the neighbors’ beach rights are limited to recreational activities reasonably related to bathing and boating. In all other respects, judgment affirmed. On the briefs: David A. Soley, Esq., and Glenn Israel, Esq., Bernstein Shur, Portland, for appellants Beverly A. Gravison, David B. Gravison, Darlene F. Edwards, and Lewis M. Edwards III 11 The issue of the specific recreational activities that are reasonably related to bathing and boating is a question of fact that the parties did not raise until after trial. See N. Sebago Shores, LLC v. Mazzaglia, 2007 ME 81, ¶ 17, 926 A.2d 728. Any factual dispute regarding what recreational activities are reasonably related to bathing and boating may, in future, require further adjudication. See id. 34 Andrew W. Sparks, Esq., and Michael T. Devine, Esq., Drummond & Drummond, LLP, Portland, for cross-appellant Ellwood Arthur Titcomb Living Trust Paul F. Driscoll, Esq., and David A. Goldman, Esq., Norman Hanson & DeTroy, LLC, Portland, for cross-appellants Calvert M. Fisher, Wendy B. Fisher, David A. Massimi, Theresa M. Massimi, Kenneth C. Roy, Barbara J. Watrous, Douglas E. Johnson, Leah Johnson, Nina Paul, Jean Perkins, Mary-Lou M. Moulton, and Michele E. Lawrence Judy A.S. Metcalf, Esq., and Ryan P. Dumais, Esq., Eaton Peabody, Brunswick, for cross-appellant Nancy Ellen Wolff Bolan Anne Long, appellee pro se At oral argument: David A. Soley, Esq., for appellants Beverly A. Gravison, David B. Gravison, Darlene F. Edwards, and Lewis M. Edwards III Andrew W. Sparks, Esq., for appellee Ellwood Arthur Titcomb Living Trust David A. Goldman, Esq., for appellees Calvert M. Fisher, Wendy B. Fisher, David A. Massimi, Theresa M. Massimi, Kenneth C. Roy, Barbara J. Watrous, Douglas E. Johnson, Leah Johnson, Nina Paul, Jean Perkins, Mary-Lou M. Moulton, and Michele E. Lawrence Judy A.S. Metcalf, Esq., for appellee Nancy Ellen Wolff Bolan Knox County Superior Court docket number RE-2011-51 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY