Opinion ID: 1968088
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Opportunity and Incentive to Litigate

Text: [¶ 12] As to the issue of the Town's litigation of its authority to accept a public easement over the two strips, the Town not only could have raised and argued that issue in Portland Water District I, but in fact did. More specifically, the record from Portland Water District I contains the following references to the Town's authority to accept the two one-rod strips lying immediately adjacent to Northeast Road: the Superior Court's order on the Town's motion to dismiss the Water District's initial complaint framed one issue before it as whether, because the Town accepted only 6 rods of the 8 rod road, the remaining two rods may still be accepted; the Town's memorandum of law in opposition to the Water District's motion for summary judgment noted that the Adjacent Property discussed by the Water District was not fully described, and went on to expressly argue that the Town maintains a right to accept a public easement over the two one-rod strips of the original eight-rod roadway that were as yet unaccepted; in its statement of facts in opposition to the Water District's motion for summary judgment, as well as supporting documentation, the Town challenged the Water District's definition of Northeast Road to include the two one-rod strips not yet . . . accepted by the Town, and explicitly reserved the right to accept the incipient dedication of the two rod wide strip (the difference between the original 8-rod rangeway layout and the 6-rod wide town way); and in its order on the Water District's motion for summary judgment, the Superior Court noted that [t]he Town claims that there exists a material issue of fact as to whether the Water District's ownership of the Adjacent Land is subject to a reservation of right by the Town to accept an incipient dedication of a two-rod-wide strip lying adjacent to the Northeast Road, and that [t]he Town also claims that there is a disputed issue of material fact with respect to whether it has a claim to, a two-rod strip of land adjacent to the Northeast Road. In its summary judgment, the Superior Court concluded that: to the extent the Town argues that the District took the Adjacent Land in 1935 subject to a right of the Town to `accept' the dedicated two rods of width surrounding the current six-rod road, [the Town's] argument is not supported by record citations and, thus, raises no genuine issue of material fact. [¶ 13] The Town appealed that 2005 Superior Court judgment, and in its brief argued that the Town has reserved the right to accept the incipient dedication of the two 1-rod wide strips of the rangeway that have not yet been made a part of the 6-rod wide public road, and that [b]y determining in its [summary judgment order] that there is no factual dispute as relates to . . . the two 1-rod wide strips of land on either side of Northeast Road Extension, the Superior Court committed an error of both fact and law. Finally, in its reply brief in that appeal, the Town contended, [a]s it relates to the Town's right to accept the incipient dedication of those two 1-rod wide strips, it is undisputed that the Town Council voted to extend the time period for accepting certain dedicated but unaccepted ways, including the two one-rod strips bordering Northeast Road. Although the issue of whether the Town had acquired, a prescriptive easement over the two one-rod strips was the only issue discussed in our opinion in Portland Water District I, the record makes clear that the issue of the Town's right to accept a public easement over the two one-rod strips of property lying next to the six-rod Northeast Road was litigated before the Superior Court, and that the Town's position did not prevail. Indeed, as the Superior Court expressly found in this case, our decision in Portland Water District I, affirmed the Superior Court's decision without reservation or modification. [¶ 14] Thus in Portland Water District I, the Town not only could have, but in fact did raise all current or potential claims it had to a possessory interest in the two strips; it argued both that it had a prescriptive easement over the property that included the two one-rod strips, and, in addition, that it had the right to accept an easement over the two strips pursuant to statute. The Town was unsuccessful as to both issues before the Superior Court, and in its appeal to this Court. [¶ 15] In the present case, the Town seeks to convince us, as it sought to convince the Superior Court, that necessary prerequisites to that determination were missing from Portland Water District I Although the identity of the fee simple owner or owners of the two one-rod strips may not be known, and there may be other encumbrances to which the strips might be subject, the Town's argument that it could accept the dedication of the public easement over the two one-rod strips was unsuccessfully advanced in Portland Water District I, and a final judgment issued. The. Town took advantage of the full opportunity it had to litigate the issue in Portland Water District I, and the Superior Court correctly concluded that the Town is collaterally estopped from accepting the dedication of a public easement in the two one-rod strips adjacent to Northeast Road. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.