Opinion ID: 2760897
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Scope of the 1978 Agreement

Text: [¶10] Testa’s argues that the 1978 agreement could reasonably be read to convey only a license, and not an easement, and is therefore ambiguous. It contends that the court erred in excluding the testimony of Douglas Chapman, Esq., the attorney who drafted the 1978 agreement. Alternatively, Testa’s asserts that the agreement unambiguously granted a license rather than an appurtenant easement. [¶11] “The construction of language creating an easement is a question of law. If the language . . . is ambiguous, however, extrinsic evidence may be considered to determine the intent of the parties.” Anchors v. Manter, 1998 ME 152, ¶ 16, 714 A.2d 134 (citation omitted); see Laux v. Harrington, 2012 ME 18, ¶ 11, 38 A.3d 318 (“[T]he scope of a party’s easement rights must be determined from the unambiguous language on the face of the deed. Only if 8 language in a deed is ambiguous may a court consider extrinsic evidence to determine the intent of the parties.” (quotation marks omitted)). We review de novo whether language in a contract is ambiguous. Id. “If we determine that [a] contract is unambiguous, then its interpretation is also a question of law. On the other hand, if the contract is ambiguous, then its interpretation is a question of fact for the factfinder,” in which case we review the trial court’s conclusion for clear error. Am. Prot. Ins. Co. v. Acadia Ins. Co., 2003 ME 6, ¶ 11, 814 A.2d 989 (citation and quotation marks omitted). [¶12] Generally speaking, “[a]n easement is a right of use over the property of another.” Stickney v. City of Saco, 2001 ME 69, ¶ 31, 770 A.2d 592; see Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1257, 1265 (2014) (“An easement is a nonpossessory right to enter and use land in the possession of another and obligates the possessor not to interfere with the uses authorized by the easement.” (quotation marks omitted)). The law recognizes two general types of easements: appurtenant and in gross. Stickney, 2001 ME 69, ¶ 31, 770 A.2d 592. An appurtenant easement, which must be attached or related to a dominant estate, entitles the dominant estate’s owner to the use of a servient estate’s land in some manner. See id. Appurtenant easements run with the land. Id. “In contrast, easements in gross are personal interests in land or the right to use another’s land. They are not appurtenant to any estate in land and do not belong to any person by 9 virtue of his ownership of an estate in other land.” Wentworth v. Sebra, 2003 ME 97, ¶ 13, 829 A.2d 520 (citation and quotation marks omitted). [¶13] An easement may also be subject to defeasance based upon the occurrence of a future event. See Eis v. Meyer, 555 A.2d 994, 996 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989), aff’d, 566 A.2d 422 (Conn. 1989) (“[A]n easement may be created which will terminate upon the happening of an event or contingency, or which may be terminated on the occurrence, [or] breach . . . of a condition . . . and the limitation or condition will ordinarily be enforced unless it is not sufficiently definite . . . or is contrary to law or public policy.” (quotation marks omitted) (alterations in original)); Rollins v. Blackden, 99 Me. 21, 25, 58 A. 69 (1904) (describing as determinable the “grant of the right to draw water from [a] well” because it would be terminated upon sale of the land bearing the well).3 [¶14] A license, on the other hand, is a “personal privilege to do an act or acts in relation to another’s land.” Reed v. A. C. McLoon & Co., 311 A.2d 548, 552 (Me. 1973). Unlike an easement, “[a] license creates no interest in land, may be created orally, and is revocable, unless coupled with an interest.” 3 See also Akasu v. Power, 91 N.E.2d 224, 226 (Mass. 1950) (“An easement may be granted which will terminate upon the happening of some particular act or upon the non-performance of a condition subsequent.”); The Law of Easements & Licenses in Land § 10:3 (2014) (“A defeasible easement may be structured in such a way that the easement either (1) ends automatically upon the happening of the stated event, in which case it is a determinable easement, or (2) is subject to termination by an affirmative act of the servient estate owner whenever the specified event occurs, in which case it is an easement subject to a condition subsequent.” (footnotes omitted) (citing cases)). 10 Id. n.7. An easement is therefore “of more permanent character” than a license. Id.; see, e.g., Waterville Estates Ass’n v. Town of Campton, 446 A.2d 1167, 1169 (N.H. 1982) (describing a license as “a transient or impermanent interest”). [¶15] In issuing its decision, the trial court acknowledged that both of the parties’ experts had opined that, if the agreement were valid, its language conveyed an appurtenant easement. We agree. It granted an appurtenant easement over the Testas’ parking lot for the benefit of Riccardo’s and the Sanborns’ buildings. As the plain language of the agreement states, the Testas agreed that both Riccardo and the Sanborns “shall have access by foot or motor vehicle over the lands of Testa” to the westerly and southerly sides of their respective parcels. The agreement “confers more than a revocable, temporary right to act,” Reed, 311 A.2d at 552—it guarantees open-ended access after the installation of a fence and token-operated gates. With the construction of the concrete retaining wall, the Sanborns and Riccardo (and Purcell) would have no other way to reach the rear of their properties. The agreement clearly “benefit[s] a dominant estate,” Wentworth, 2003 ME 97, ¶ 12, 829 A.2d 520—two estates, in this case—and is subject to termination only upon abuse. [¶16] Testa’s relies on the termination language to argue that the agreement could be read to convey a license and is therefore ambiguous. Alternatively, it argues that the agreement unambiguously granted a license. But unlike a license, 11 the 1978 agreement is not revocable at will. See, e.g., The Law of Easements & Licenses in Land § 1:5 (2014) (“Specifying a power to terminate for a particular reason or in limited circumstances may be seen as inconsistent with the unabridged right to revoke retained by one who grants a license. Moreover, an easement may be expressly subject to termination by the servient owner upon the occurrence of a specified event.” (footnotes omitted)); Riverwood Commercial Park, LLC v. Standard Oil Co., 797 N.W.2d 770, 777 (N.D. 2011) (finding that a “permit constituted an easement,” not a license, because it “is not revocable at the will of the landowner, but is subject to termination only under limited circumstances”). That the access was structured to end upon the happening of a “specified event” in the agreement—abuse of the access—does not transform it into a license. The Law of Easements & Licenses in Land § 10:3 (2014); see Akasu v. Power, 91 N.E.2d 224, 226 (Mass. 1950). In its amended judgment, the trial court found that the Coopersmiths had not abused the easement and Testa’s does not appeal that finding here. [¶17] For these reasons, the court did not err in determining that the language of the 1978 agreement unambiguously granted an appurtenant easement and excluding Chapman’s testimony. See Sleeper v. Loring, 2013 ME 112, ¶ 16, 83 A.3d 769 (“When interpreting a deed whose terms are not ambiguous, we do 12 not speculate about the grantors’ actual or probable objectives; rather, we focus on what is expressed within the four corners of the deed.”).