Opinion ID: 2258725
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Interests in the Submerged Lands

Text: [¶ 21] In addressing Norton's claims to the submerged lands, we must first determine whether the court properly concluded that the federal government obtained title to the small boat pool through condemnation and conveyed title to the pool to Norton's father. Submerged lands are unique because of their usefulness to the public for fishing and navigation. See Idaho v. United States, 533 U.S. 262, 272, 121 S.Ct. 2135, 150 L.Ed.2d 326 (2001); Opinion of the Justices, 437 A.2d 597, 607 (Me.1981). Such lands are traditionally held by the State in trust for the public to use for fishing and navigation. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387, 455-57, 13 S.Ct. 110, 36 L.Ed. 1018 (1892). [¶ 22] The present case presents a unique situation; the federal government took submerged lands from the State and from individuals. To effect a taking, the federal government was required to expressly describe the interest or interests taken. Declaration of Taking Act, Pub.L. No. 71-736, ch. 307, 46 Stat. 1421 (1931) (codified as amended at 40 U.S.C.A. § 3114 (West 2005)). We must therefore apply the law in effect at the time of the taking to determine first, whether the federal government took title to the land and second, whether the property interests swept into the taking included the public's trust interest in the land. If the federal government did not take the State's public trust interest, we must determine whether Norton lacks a title interest in the land, or rather holds title, but lacks the ability to exclude the public from entering for purposes of fishing and navigation.
[¶ 23] [T]he plaintiff in a quiet title action has the burden of proving better title than that of the defendant. Hodgdon v. Campbell, 411 A.2d 667, 671 (Me.1980). To accomplish this goal in the present case, Norton was required to establish a valid chain of title, including a valid taking by condemnation by the United States. The determination of property boundaries based on the language of a deed presents a question of law that we review de novo. McGeechan v. Sherwood, 2000 ME 188, ¶ 24, 760 A.2d 1068, 1075. If the language is ambiguous, the rules of construction apply and the court may examine extrinsic evidence. Id. In such circumstances, we review the trial court's findings regarding extrinsic evidence for clear error. Thompson v. Rothman, 2002 ME 39, ¶ 8, 791 A.2d 921, 924. [¶ 24] There is no question that the federal government may take property through condemnation proceedings. [T]he United States may take property pursuant to its power of eminent domain in one of two ways: it can enter into physical possession of property without authority of a court order; or it can institute condemnation proceedings under various Acts of Congress providing authority for such takings. United States v. Dow, 357 U.S. 17, 21, 78 S.Ct. 1039, 2 L.Ed.2d 1109 (1958). In either instance, title passes to the United States when the owner receives compensation or when the United States deposits the compensation into court. Id. at 21-22, 78 S.Ct. 1039. [¶ 25] In the present case, the federal government employed a condemnation proceeding to obtain title to the land. At the time of the wartime condemnation in the present case, the United States government was operating pursuant to the Second War Powers Act of 1942, Public Law Number 77-507, ch. 199, § 201, 56 Stat. 176, 177 (repealed 1947), which granted the power to the Secretary of the Navy to acquire by purchase, donation, or other means of transfer, or [to] cause proceedings to be instituted in any court having jurisdiction of such proceedings, to acquire by condemnation, any real property, temporary use thereof, or other interest therein ... that shall be deemed necessary, for military, naval, or other war purposes .... A separate Public Law made clear that the Secretary of the Navy was authorized to establish or develop [certain] naval shore activities by the construction of such temporary or permanent public works as he may consider necessary. Act of Apr. 28, 1942, Pub.L. No. 77-531, ch. 250, 56 Stat. 248. The Declaration of Taking Act in effect at the time, Pub.L. No. 71-736, ch. 307, 46 Stat. 1421, required the filing of a declaration of taking that contained, among other things, a description of the land that was sufficient to identify it, a plan showing the land taken, and a statement of the amount estimated for just compensation. Id. [¶ 26] Most defects in a declaration of taking are not fatal to a taking pursuant to the Act. See, e.g., United States v. 125.2 Acres of Land, 732 F.2d 239, 242-43 (1st Cir.1984) (stating that personal notice is not required for a taking to be effective and that takings in advance of compensation do not violate due process); United States v. Haddon, 550 F.2d 677, 680-81 (1st Cir.1977) (stating that a failure of notice does not void the United States' taking, but may give rise to a claim for damages); Long v. Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, 236 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir.2001) (same). A condemnation may be held to be void, however, if the condemnation court never obtained in rem jurisdiction because of an inaccurate or misleading description and a failure to seize the land. United States v. Chatham, 323 F.2d 95, 100 (4th Cir.1963). It would be establishing a dangerous precedent to permit the Government in a condemnation proceeding, which is purely statutory and strictly construed, to condemn one's property without clearly and unmistakably describing all of that portion sought to be condemned . . .. United States v. 5.324 Acres of Land, 79 F.Supp. 748, 762 (S.D.Cal.1948). [¶ 27] In the present case, the declaration of taking described the condemnation of the upland property and adjacent submerged lands. This description is ambiguous because it does not describe the boundaries of the submerged land or explicitly address the public trust interest also at issue here. When interpreting documents that are ambiguous, it is appropriate to examine extrinsic evidence; we review the factual findings regarding the extrinsic evidence for clear error. McGeechan, 2000 ME 188, ¶ 24, 760 A.2d at 1075; Thompson, 2002 ME 39, ¶ 8, 791 A.2d at 924. [¶ 28] The trial court found that the evidence presented established the United States' occupation of the small boat pool and demonstrated its intention to take it. Specifically, the court found that the small boat pool, set off by Pier H and the breakwater, was guarded and regulated exclusively by the Navy. The trial record amply supports the court's factual finding that, in addition to the language of the condemnation documents, the federal government's occupation of the submerged lands evidences its intention to take the lands. See Thompson, 2002 ME 39, ¶ 8, 791 A.2d at 924. In sum, in light of the Navy's overt sequestration and use of the submerged land, the description of the property to include adjacent submerged lands cannot be regarded as inaccurate or misleading and hence does not run afoul of the Declaration of Taking Act, Pub.L. No. 71-736, ch. 307, 46 Stat. 1421, in effect at the time of the taking. Compare with Chatham, 323 F.2d at 100; United States v. 5.324 Acres of Land, 79 F.Supp. at 762. [¶ 29] Accordingly, the United States did obtain title to the small boat pool through condemnation and could convey it to Norton's father. Through its initial deed and the series of confirmatory deeds that followed, the federal government accomplished this land transfer. Ultimately, however, because Norton, through the present action, seeks to exclude the public from his property, we must also address whether the State's public trust easement in the small boat pool survived the condemnation and subsequent transfer of these submerged lands.
[¶ 30] As we have observed, at the time of the taking, the United States had the power to obtain interests in real property by condemnation and to construct public works as necessary. See Act of Apr. 28, 1942, Pub.L. No. 77-531, ch. 250, 56 Stat. 248; Second War Powers Act of 1942, Pub.L. No. 77-507, ch. 199, § 201, 56 Stat. at 177; Declaration of Taking Act, Pub.L. No. 71-736, ch. 307, 46 Stat. 1421. We must determine whether the federal government achieved the separate taking of the State's public trust interest in the small boat pool. [¶ 31] Because navigable waters are of great importance to the public, ownership of the submerged lands underlying those waters is `strongly identified with the sovereign power of government.' Idaho v. United States, 533 U.S. at 272, 121 S.Ct. 2135 (quoting Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 552, 101 S.Ct. 1245, 67 L.Ed.2d 493 (1981)); see also Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 146 U.S. at 455-56, 13 S.Ct. 110. Historically, as the United States grew, it regarded newly obtained lands under navigable waters as being `held for the ultimate benefit of future States.' Idaho v. United States, 533 U.S. at 272, 121 S.Ct. 2135 (quoting United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 55, 46 S.Ct. 197, 70 L.Ed. 465 (1926)). [¶ 32] For their part, the states have traditionally held these submerged lands in trust for the public. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 146 U.S. at 455-56, 13 S.Ct. 110. Title to such lands could be divested to an individual, but would remain subject to the public trust. Id. at 456-58, 13 S.Ct. 110. In Maine, this public trust is in the nature of an easement that preserves for the public the rights of fishing and navigation. Opinion of the Justices, 437 A.2d at 605. Accordingly, the State held two separate interests and could convey the jus privatum, or the private right to title, but that title was subject to the jus publicum, or the public right of fishing and navigation, unless those rights were expressly limited or extinguished by the State. See Opinion of the Justices, 437 A.2d at 605-07; see also United States v. 1.58 Acres of Land, 523 F.Supp. 120, 124-25 (D.Mass.1981); but see United States v. 11.037 Acres of Land, 685 F.Supp. 214, 216-17 (N.D.Cal. 1988) (declining to follow the reasoning of 1.58 Acres of Land and holding that the public trust easement was extinguished by the federal taking). [¶ 33] The small boat pool at issue in the present case incorporates both the intertidal zone abutting Norton's land (i.e., the zone between the high tide and low tide marks) and submerged lands beyond the intertidal zone. [6] Pursuant to Maine law, both types of submerged lands are normally subject to a public trust easement. See Bell v. Town of Wells, 510 A.2d 509, 514-16 (Me.1986); Opinion of the Justices, 437 A.2d at 607 (stating that intertidal and submerged lands are impressed with a public trust, a principle that reflects the unique public value of those lands); People v. Steeplechase Park Co., 218 N.Y. 459, 113 N.E. 521, 524 (1916) (In this country the state has succeeded to all the rights of both crown and Parliament in the navigable waters and the soil under them....). [¶ 34] When the government commenced its condemnation proceeding to take the small boat pool, the Declaration of Taking Act, Pub.L. No. 71-736, ch. 307, 46 Stat. 1421, governed the process by which a taking could be achieved through condemnation. Although in general, the United States' exercise of eminent domain creates a new title and extinguishes all previous rights, A.W. Duckett & Co. v. United States, 266 U.S. 149, 151, 45 S.Ct. 38, 69 L.Ed. 216 (1924), the United States may not take a state's interest in a condemned parcel except by stating so expressly in the condemnation proceeding, see Declaration of Taking Act, Pub.L. No. 71-736, ch. 307, 46 Stat. 1421 (requiring [a] statement of the ... interest in said lands taken) (codified as amended at 40 U.S.C.A. § 3114(a)(3)); see also United States v. Chatham, 323 F.2d at 100 (stating that a condemnation is void if the description was inaccurate or misleading). [¶ 35] Because of the importance of the interest at issue, the United States' taking of the jus privatum through a condemnation of land cannot be understood to implicitly include a taking of a state's public trust interest in that land. Cf. City of Alameda v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 635 F.Supp. 1447, 1450 (N.D.Cal.1986); see also Opinion of the Justices, 437 A.2d at 607. Here, because the description of the property does not include any mention of the public trust easement of the State, we will not imply a reference to that interest, and accordingly, we conclude the United States did not take the public trust easement and therefore never extinguished it by transferring it to a private individual. [7] [¶ 36] The State was appropriately listed as a party to the condemnation proceeding because it held the jus privatum title to the submerged lands beyond the low tide mark until the taking. The inclusion of the State as a party did not, however, negate the requirement that the federal government be explicit about the nature of its taking. We will not read into the description an intention to take the easement held by the State for the public. Accordingly, although the United States exercised its powers pursuant to the Property Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. CONST., art. IV, § 3, cl. 2, [8] in deeding the land to Norton's father, the jus privatum interest it deeded remains subject to the State's public trust easement, the jus publicum, which allows the public to use the submerged lands for fishing and navigation. [¶ 37] Through the application of the public trust doctrine in the present case, we have determined that Norton's title is subject to the State's public trust easement. This determination does not disrupt the chain of title established by Norton at trial. Norton holds title to the small boat pool, but his title is subject to the State's public trust easement permitting the public to use the small boat pool for fishing and navigation. [9] Accordingly, Norton may, as the holder of title to the submerged lands, limit access to his structures, but may not build or arrange them in a manner that unreasonably interferes with the public's right to fish and navigate in the waters. See Opinion of the Justices, 437 A.2d at 605; State v. Wilson, 42 Me. 9, 26-27 (1856). The parties do not dispute that Norton has title to the breakwater structure itself and possesses the right to exclude others from it. [¶ 38] Because the judgment at issue articulated the State's public trust easement in the small boat pool as preventing Norton from having title to the pool, we clarify the judgment and remand for the entry of a judgment on count four quieting title in Norton, subject to the State's public trust easement. The entry is: Dismissal of count one (quiet title to Island Avenue and Marginal Street) vacated and remanded for further proceedings. Judgment on count two (quiet title to the small boat pool against the Town of Long Island) affirmed. Judgment on count three vacated as to any claim for damages arising from count one, but otherwise affirmed. Judgment on count four vacated and remanded for entry of a judgment quieting title to the small boat pool in Norton, but subject to Maine's public trust easement.