Opinion ID: 2307544
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: property claims

Text: [¶ 28] Finally, the Crispins argue that the Superior Court erred in concluding that the prospective use of their easement by Maine Life Care would not unreasonably burden their own use. [¶ 29] The Crispins' property claims address the use of a private road, known as Piper Road, connecting their shorefront property to Spurwink Road. While Piper Road lies on property that will be wholly owned by Maine Life Care, a binding dedication agreement entered into by the previous owner of the Crispins' property gives the Crispins [t]he right to enter and transit [Piper Road] for passage by foot, vehicle or otherwise. The Crispins argued before the Superior Court that their rights in Piper Road will be substantially impaired by Maine Life Care's plans to improve the road and to use it as the primary means of access for its proposed development. The primary issue before the Superior Court was, therefore, whether the dedication agreement, to which both parties were bound, allowed such use of the servient tenement by Maine Life Care, its future owner. See Guild v. Hinman, 1997 ME 120, ¶ 6, 695 A.2d 1190, 1193. [¶ 30] The construction of language in an easement deed is a question of law, which we review de novo. See Fine Line, Inc. v. Blake, 677 A.2d 1061, 1063 (Me.1996). If the language of the deed is unambiguous, the scope of a party's easement rights is determined solely from that language. See id. (quoting Rancourt v. Town of Glenburn, 635 A.2d 964, 965 (Me. 1993)). If the language of the deed is ambiguous, however, the scope of a party's easement rights may be determined based on extrinsic evidence of the original parties' intent. See id. at 1063-64. If extrinsic evidence is admitted, the Superior Court must ascertain the objectively manifested intention of the parties in light of circumstances in existence recently prior to the conveyance. Guild, 1997 ME 120, ¶ 7, 695 A.2d at 1193. We will uphold the Superior Court's factual findings regarding the original parties' intent unless we find them to be clearly erroneous. See id.; White v. Zela, 1997 ME 8, ¶ 3, 687 A.2d 645, 646. [¶ 31] The Superior Court found that the language of the dedication agreement itself was ambiguous, and thus admitted evidence relevant to the intent of the original parties to that agreement. See Badger v. Hill, 404 A.2d 222, 225 (Me.1979). Based on the evidence presented at trial, the court found that the signatory parties intended that the dedication agreement would facilitate eventual commercial development of their properties, and that the proposed development in this case would not create conditions inconsistent with that intent. [¶ 32] The Superior Court did not err in concluding that the language is ambiguous. The dedication does reference the possibility of future development of the servient property. It does not, however, delineate the nature or agreed upon parameters of any future development. For example, the agreement contains the following statement: The grant of easements and the benefits, covenants, terms, conditions, restrictions and purposes created by this Dedication shall also extend to any additional lots or parcels resulting from one or more divisions of a portion or portions of the Benefitted Property. (Emphasis added.) While the language of the dedication unambiguously anticipated some future development of the servient property, the Superior Court did not err in concluding that there was ambiguity as to whether the parties intended to allow a development as substantial as that proposed by Maine Life Care. See Fine Line, 677 A.2d at 1064. [¶ 33] At trial, ample evidence existed to support the Superior Court's conclusion that the parties intended the dedication to allow the use of the easement proposed by Maine Life Care. For example, Margaret Osgood, an original party to the dedication agreement testified that she believed the purpose of the agreement was to protect us in a sense so we could further develop the land when we chose to sell it so there wouldn't be any limitations on what we could do with our land at a later date. (Emphasis added.) Other parties to the agreement had a similar recollection, and the Superior Court apparently found this testimony to be credible. See VanVoorhees v. Dodge, 679 A.2d 1077, 1080 (Me. 1996) (credibility determinations solely for presiding judge as trier of fact). Therefore, we find that the Superior Court's conclusion was not clearly erroneous. See White, 1997 ME 8, ¶ 3, 687 A.2d at 646. [¶ 34] The Crispins also argue, first, that Maine Life Care's planned construction of an angled curb bordering portions of Piper Road will impair the effective use of their easement, see Badger, 404 A.2d at 227, and, second, that Maine Life Care's planned construction of an emergency access road between Piper Road and the Higgins Beach area will overburden the right of way, see generally Taylor v. Nutter, 687 A.2d 632, 635-36 (Me.1996). The Superior Court, however, found, as a matter of fact, that the proposed curb would not obstruct the Crispins' right to traverse the right of way and that the proposed emergency access road would be gated and used only as a secondary emergency route. [10] These findings of fact were not clearly erroneous. See White, 1997 ME 8, ¶ 3, 687 A.2d at 646.