Opinion ID: 2557287
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: [¶ 2] In its judgment enjoining the Trust from timber harvesting and road construction, the court found the following facts, which are supported by competent evidence in the record. See Sebra v. Wentworth, 2010 ME 21, ¶ 5, 990 A.2d 538, 541. The properties at issue are located in a development near Meduxnekeag Lake in Linneus, Maine, called Meduxnekeag Lake Properties. All of the relevant properties are taxed pursuant to Maine's Tree Growth Tax Law, with the exception of any portions of the lots that owners withdrew to build homes. See 36 M.R.S. §§ 571 to 584-A (2010). [2] The deed to each of the MLP properties contains the following restrictive covenant: The lot shall be used only for single-family residential purposes and no commercial or business activity shall be conducted on the lot. Although Sanseverino, the Trust, and SWH, Inc. each owned various lots within MLP, Holmes initially did not own an MLP lot. [¶ 3] In the summer of 2004, the Trust arranged for Michael Lane to cut timber from some of the Trust's lots, and to construct fire roads on its property. Lane built the roads, cut and removed substantial quantities of timber with large commercial timber harvesting equipment, and sold the timber for a profit at lumber mills. In response, Sanseverino and Holmes filed a complaint against the Trust seeking to enjoin the timber harvesting, road construction, and other violations of the restrictive covenant. [¶ 4] The Trust moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Holmes lacked standing to enforce the restrictive covenant because, at that time, he did not own an MLP lot. Although the court initially granted the Trust's motion on procedural and standing grounds, the court later allowed Holmes to rejoin the suit after he acquired an MLP lot subject to the restrictive covenant at issue. See M.R. Civ. P. 21. [¶ 5] The Trust then moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7) for failure to join other MLP lot owners whose property rights might be affected. The court denied the motion. After a bench trial, the court concluded that the language in the restrictive covenant was unambiguous and found that the specific timber activity and related road construction engaged in by the Trust property owners violated the deed's restrictions on commercial or business activity. The court enjoined the Trust and its principals from engaging in any further commercial or business activity within MLP, including but not limited to any further timber harvesting or road construction that is not directly and immediately related to a specific residential use of property. The Trust appealed.