Opinion ID: 2362105
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Easement Extends Beyond the Paved Lane

Text: [¶ 24] Pursuant to a motion by the City, the Superior Court (York County, Fritzsche, J. ) amended its judgment to add that a boundary survey by Paul Ruopp dated April 1, 1998, accurately depicts on the face of the earth the metes and bounds of Tasker Lane. The plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred by granting prescriptive-easement rights beyond the paved portion of Tasker Lane. Ruopp, plaintiffs' expert witness, testified on direct examination as follows: My conclusion, after researching the records and evaluating the physical evidence on the ground, is that the width of the lane is 20.6 feet. This is true because we traveled what encompassed the travel lane, the width between the adjoining property is 20.6 feet. This testimony was never controverted by the plaintiffs in any way. See Glidden, 684 A.2d at 1317 (Me.1996) (finding uncontroverted testimony influential in determining a lack of acquiescence for purposes of prescriptive easement). The trial court, therefore, did not err in finding that the width of the lane was 20.6 feet, extending beyond the paved portion of the lane. [¶ 25] Plaintiffs argue, alternatively, that, even if the shoulder portions of the lane were generally considered to be a part of the easement prescriptively obtained, their regular and continuous use of that portion near the Stickney homestead for parking prevented it from being prescriptively obtained. The trial court found that the requirements for the creation of a public way by prescriptive use existed for about 40 years. Hence, for 40 years, the lane  including the unpaved portion  has been a public way. As we have noted in the past, one cannot assert a claim of title by adverse possession against a municipality. Flower v. Town of Phippsburg, 644 A.2d 1031, 1032 (Me.1994) (citing Phinney v. Gardner, 121 Me. 44, 48-49, 115 A. 523, 525 (1921)). Plaintiffs' claim, therefore, lacks merit.