Opinion ID: 2680015
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standing, Waiver, and Estoppel

Text: [¶13] Muther and Woods challenge the J-Lot owners’ standing to claim rights under the 2006 settlement involving Muther, Woods, and the Association. In determining whether the cameras unreasonably interfere with the easement rights of J-Lot owners, it was necessary for the trial court to weigh the competing 7 interests in the easement, including the easement rights that the J-Lot owners acquired by implication as provided by the 1970 subdivision plan, Muther and Woods’s interest in protecting their property from trespassers and overburdening of the easement, and Muther and Woods’s obligations to non-J-Lot easement holders pursuant to the 2006 settlement. See Flaherty, 2011 ME 32, ¶¶ 69-71, 17 A.3d 640. For this reason, we previously determined that the 2006 settlement was relevant evidence of the reasonableness of the cameras, although it is not binding as between the parties to this suit. See id. ¶¶ 35, 69. [¶14] The J-Lot owners are not seeking to enforce rights pursuant to the 2006 settlement, but, as we stated previously, the extent to which the nondisturbance clause of the settlement prohibits Muther and Woods from photographing users of the easement is relevant to the reasonableness of the cameras. Id. ¶ 72. [¶15] An examination of the merits of the waiver and estoppel arguments reveals that the trial court properly declined to accept Muther and Woods’s arguments on these issues.2 See M.R. Civ. P. 41(b); Blue Star Corp. v. CKF Props., LLC, 2009 ME 101, ¶¶ 26-27, 980 A.2d 1270. Regardless of whether some of the parties to this action lacked standing to enforce the terms of the 2006 settlement, 2 Insofar as Muther and Woods assert that a failure by some J-Lot owners to contest the proceedings on remand should bear on the determination of whether the cameras unreasonably interfere with the rights of other J-Lot owners, this argument fails because one J-Lot owner has just as much right to assert his or her easement rights as a group of J-Lot owners. 8 the court did not err by considering that agreement because its terms provided evidence of the need for injunctive relief, which is relevant to Flaherty’s claim. See M.R. Evid. 401, 402.