Opinion ID: 3157470
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: French’s Ownership of the Dominant Estate

Text: [¶16] The Estate further argues that even if the 1880 deed created an easement appurtenant, French failed to carry his burden to prove that his lot is benefited by the easement. French bore the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an easement was created and that he now owns the property benefitted by the easement. See LaBelle v. Blake, 1998 ME 165, ¶ 9 n.3, 714 A.2d 145; Hodgdon v. Campbell, 411 A.2d 667, 670 (Me. 1980). As explained above, the deeds and chains of title were sufficient to prove the creation and ongoing existence of the easement. Proof of ownership required French to prove that he owns the dominant estate—the property reserved by Reuben Hutchings. 8 [¶17] French did not provide concrete evidence of the relationship between the Goodell deed and the Grindle deed or precisely where the property described in each of those deeds is located. Although it would have been preferable for French to provide a survey or other evidence to clarify why two deeds and chains of title exist and where exactly the property each deed describes is located, it was sufficient that French proved he owned the property conveyed by the Grindle deed. Because it is clear from the Grindle deed and the Estate’s deed, taken together along with their respective chains of title, that French owns the dominant estate benefitted by an easement across the Estate’s property, French carried his burden of proof. [¶18] The Estate argues that French was required to prove precisely where on the face of the earth the easement is located. There is no support for this statement in Maine law. The Estate points to Stickney, which holds that it was not error for a trial court to rely on survey evidence in determining the location of an easement. 2001 ME 69, ¶ 24, 770 A.2d 592. Stickney, however, does not hold that proving the precise location of an easement is required for a plaintiff to receive a judgment declaring that an easement exists and that the plaintiff owns the easement. See id. [¶19] Proof of the precise location of the easement might be necessary if there was a question as to whether the easement crosses the Estate’s property or 9 some other property. Here, that is not the issue. The parties dispute whether an access easement exists, but there is no dispute that, to the extent an easement exists, it runs over the Estate’s property. French was not, therefore, required to prove the precise location of the easement for the court to declare that the easement exists, that it runs over the Estate’s property, and that French owns it. [¶20] Because the deed at issue is most reasonably interpreted to create an easement appurtenant to property French now owns, and the Estate had notice of the easement, the trial court did not err in concluding that French owns an access easement across the Estate’s property. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. On the briefs: Donald Brown, Esq., Brewer, for appellant Estate of Martha Gutzan Valerie Chiasson, Esq., Ellsworth, for appellees Richard P. French and Santos French Ellsworth District Court docket number RE-2012-50 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY