Opinion ID: 2299170
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Habendum[9]

Text: [¶ 20] Because the term heirs appears in the habendum and in the larger paragraph that grants the parcel described, which contains the easement clause, Wentworth contends that the Superior Court erred in concluding that the absence of the term heirs from the easement clause can only create a life interest. He relies on the principle that a habendum may enlarge the estate conveyed by a granting clause and suggests that the presence of the term heirs in other parts of the deed demonstrates the parties' intent to make the easement perpetual. [¶ 21] It is not clear that Wentworth has properly preserved this argument. If he has, however, the habendum clause can enlarge an estate conveyed only if it is not repugnant to the premises. [10] See Emery v. Chase, 5 Me. 232, 236 (1828) (The habendum cannot defeat or destroy an estate granted in the premises; so far as the former is repugnant to the latter, it is inoperative and void.); but see Higgins v. Wasgatt, 34 Me. 305, 308-09 (1852) (holding that when there was no doubt the parties' intended to create a life estate, their intent prevailed, giving effect to the habendum and diminishing the estate despite the conflict between the habendum and the premises). If the premises contain no express limitation on the estate granted, then the premises are merely descriptive, the premises and the habendum are not repugnant, and the habendum can enlarge the estate. See Berry v. Billings, 44 Me. 416, 423-24 (1857). Here, the premises, in its easement clause, contain the word assigns. Because the term assigns describes a particular estate, see Brown, 106 Me. 97, 103, 75 A. 382 (explaining that the phrase to him and his assigns forever creates only a life estate), the premises are not merely descriptive. The habendum and premises conflict, and the habendum cannot enlarge the estate. [11]