Opinion ID: 2302905
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statutory Road Association

Text: [¶ 10] The Lot Owners argue that the court erred in finding that their lots are not benefited by easements and in concluding that section 3101 is inapplicable to the subdivision roads at issue. [¶ 11] We review a trial court's factual findings for clear error and its application of the law to those facts de novo. Peters v. O'Leary, 2011 ME 106, ¶ 15, 30 A.3d 825. The parties have stipulated to the facts, and the interpretation of a deed is a matter of law reviewed de novo. Matteson v. Batchelder, 2011 ME 134, ¶ 12, 32 A.3d 1059. Likewise, we review legal questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Peters, 2011 ME 106, ¶ 13, 30 A.3d 825. [¶ 12] The process for forming a statutory road association may be set in motion when certain conditions are met: When 4 or more parcels of land are benefited by a private road, private way or bridge as an easement or by fee ownership of the private road, private way or bridge, the owners of any 3 or more of the parcels, as long as at least 3 of the parcels are owned by different persons, may make written application to a notary public to call a meeting. 23 M.R.S. § 3101(2). For purposes of section 3101, a private way means an easement held by a municipality for purposes of public access to land or water not otherwise connected to a public way. Id. §§ 3101(1)(A), 3021(2) (2011). The court correctly concluded that the subdivision roads do not meet this definition because the parties stipulated that the Town of Shapleigh has not accepted the roads and the roads remain privately owned. [¶ 13] However, the court did not consider whether the subdivision roads fall within the plain language meaning of the term private road as distinct from private way and used in section 3101. For purposes of section 3101, and absent a relevant statutory definition to the contrary, we interpret the phrase private road to mean precisely what it says in plain and ordinary language: a road that is privately owned. See Peters, 2011 ME 106, ¶ 13, 30 A.3d 825 (explaining that unambiguous statutory language is interpreted according to its plain meaning). Here, the subdivision roads are privately owned; we therefore conclude that they fall within the plain and ordinary meaning of private road as that phrase is used in section 3101. [¶ 14] We further conclude that the stipulated facts compel the finding that the Lot Owners' parcels are benefited by easements over the private roads. The language of each deed clearly and unequivocally conveys an express right-of-way over the subdivision roads for purposes of access to and from each parcel to the public highway. [1] Each of the Lot Owners, therefore, has the right to make use of the subdivision's private roads. That right is an easement. See Matteson, 2011 ME 134, ¶ 16, 32 A.3d 1059 (A right-of-way is a form of easement.). [¶ 15] As a result, the Lot Owners may seek to establish a road association pursuant to section 3101. Combined, they own four parcels of land, three of which are owned by different persons, and those parcels are benefited by easements over the subdivision's private roads.