Court Opinion

ID: 9727722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:48:46.273409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:42.062303
License: Public Domain

*374CALKINS, J.,
with whom CLIFFORD and RUDMAN, JJ., join, dissenting.
[¶ 32] I respectfully dissent. I do so because the Court has failed to give the proper deference to the trial court’s factual findings and because the Court has created a new and unwarranted presumption in the law of prescriptive easements.
[¶ 33] I agree with the Court that the elements required to prove a public prescriptive easement are continuous public use for twenty years under a claim of right adverse to the owner, with the owner’s knowledge or acquiescence, or a use so open, notorious, visible, and uninterrupted that knowledge and acquiescence are presumed. Jordan v. Shea, 2002 ME 36, ¶¶ 22, 28 n. 7, 791 A.2d 116, 122, 124. These are the same elements required to prove a private prescriptive easement with the addition of proving public use. Id. ¶ 22, 791 A.2d at 122. Public use is shown by the use of the road by people who are inseparable from the public generally. Id. ¶ 28 n. 7,791 A.2d at 124.
[¶ 34] The trial court found that the plaintiffs had established all the elements by “overwhelming evidence.” Because there was no request for findings of fact we must assume that the court made all findings necessary to support its decision, and we will not set them aside unless clearly erroneous. Glidden v. Belden, 684 A.2d 1306, 1316 (Me.1996). Our review is deferential, and only if the evidence required a different result or if there are no facts in the record to support the trial court’s judgment will we vacate. The only contested issue at trial was whether the plaintiffs proved a claim of right adverse to the Baptist School.
I. PRESUMPTION OF ADVERSITY AND PRESUMPTION OF PERMISSION
[¶ 35] In order to prove the element of “claim of right adverse to the owner,” the claimant asserting a prescriptive easement to a way must prove lack of permission from the owner and use of the way by the claimant as though the claimant owned the property himself. S.D. Warren Co. v. Vernon, 1997 ME 161, ¶ 11, 697 A.2d 1280, 1283; Blanchard v. Moulton, 63 Me. 434, 437 (1873). Proof of adverse use is facilitated by a presumption of adversity that arises when the other elements of a prescriptive easement are met:
[T]he ordinary rule is that, where there has been an unmolested, open, and continuous use of a way for twenty years or more with the knowledge and acquiescence of the owner of the servient estate, the use will be presumed to have been adverse and under a claim of right, and sufficient to create a title by prescription, unless contradicted or explained.
Burnham v. Burnham, 130 Me. 409, 411, 156 A. 823, 824 (1931) (citing Thompson v. Bowes, 115 Me. 6, 9-10, 97 A. 1, 2 (1916)); accord, e.g., Blackmer v. Williams, 437 A.2d 858, 862 (Me.1981). When the presumption applies, the burden shifts to the landowner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the use was not adverse. M.R. Evid. 301(a). This means that in most cases permission becomes the defense to a prescriptive easement claim.7 *375Glidden, 684 A.2d at 1318 n. 21. The presumption of adversity applies whether the prescriptive easement is sought in favor of private individuals or the general public. See Stickney v. City of Saco, 2001 ME 69, ¶¶ 21-22, 770 A.2d 592, 602.
[¶ 36] The presumption of adversity, however, is not applicable to the use of “wild and uncultivated land,” which under our existing law is presumed to be permissive. Eaton v. Town of Wells, 2000 ME 176, ¶ 32, 760 A.2d 232, 244; S.D. Warren Co., 1997 ME 161, ¶ 16, 697 A.2d at 1284; Town of Manchester v. Augusta Country Club, 477 A.2d 1124, 1130 (Me.1984). The effect of the presumption of permission is to negate the presumption of adversity, so that the claimant of a prescriptive easement has the burden to prove that the use was adverse to the landowner. The Baptist School’s entire argument on appeal is that its land is wild and uncultivated, that the burden to prove adversity was on the plaintiffs, and that as a matter of law they did not meet that burden.
II. THE TRIAL COURT’S APPLICATION OF THE PRESUMPTIONS
[¶ 37] In this case the trial court could have found that the plaintiffs were entitled to the presumption of adversity because all of the other elements of public prescriptive easement were met and because the evidence did not compel a finding that the land was wild and uncultivated. There was evidence that most of the Baptist School property within the Town of Chapman is wooded, but a portion of the land is cleared and was farmed within living memory. More importantly, the Baptist School’s property within the Town of Ma-pleton is extensively cleared and has been built up with numerous buildings and structures to serve the summer camp programs that have been held there since the 1950s. Although the section of the Baptist Park Road in Mapleton is not at issue in this action, because it is uncontested that the public has a prescriptive easement on that section,8 the trial court was free to consider the developed nature of the adjoining land in deciding whether the Chapman portion of the road was through wild and uncultivated land. The trial court was not required to view the Chapman property in isolation, and by considering both the Mapleton and Chapman portions of the property and the previous use of the Chapman portion, it could have found that the land is not wild and uncultivated. If it made such a finding, which the evidence supports, then the presumption of permission did not arise, the presumption of adversity was applicable, and the burden was on the Baptist School to prove that the public’s use of the road was permissive. In the absence of a request for findings of fact, we must assume that the trial court made all findings necessary to support its decision, Glidden, 684 A.2d at 1316, and I would assume that the court found that the land was not wild and uncultivated and that the Baptist School failed to meet its burden to prove that the public use was permissive. Since neither finding is clear*376ly erroneous, I would affirm the judgment on that basis.
[¶ 38] I would reach the same result, however, even if the presumption of adversity does not apply. If the trial court had found that the land is wild and uncultivated, the rebuttable presumption of permission would arise, Eaton, 2000 ME 176, ¶ 32, 760 A.2d at 244, and the burden would be on the plaintiffs to prove that the public use of the road was adverse. Adversity is a finding of fact that we review only for clear error. Taylor v. Nutter, 687 A.2d 632, 634 (Me.1996). In my view the evidence amply supports a finding that the plaintiffs met their burden to prove adverse use.
[¶ 39] Numerous witnesses testified that they and their friends, neighbors, and relatives had used the road regularly throughout the prescriptive period without asking permission of the Baptist School. Several witnesses stated that they believed they had a right to use the road and one testified, “I just always used it. I used it like my backyard.” Testimony that some of the users would have respected hypothetical “No Trespassing” signs had they been posted does not necessarily show that them use was not adverse. The court could have construed this testimony to mean simply that the witnesses would have complied with signs to avoid the possibility of a criminal trespass prosecution, see 17-A M.R.S.A. § 402(1)(C) (Supp.2001), and not that they believed the Baptist School had the right to exclude them. In any event, no such signs were posted, and the Baptist School made no effort (apart from an abortive attempt to block the road through the Mapleton lot in 1978) to prevent the public from using the road. Baptist School President Raymond Todd testified that the public use was with the organization’s knowledge, that some people asked and were given permission and that others did not ask.
[¶ 40] This evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the public’s use of the road was adverse, not permissive. Giving due deference to the fact-finder’s superior ability to judge the credibility, weight, and significance of the evidence, Eaton, 2000 ME 176, ¶ 29, 760 A.2d at 243, I do not understand how the Court can conclude that there is no evidence of adverse use. The witness’s statement, “I used it like my backyard,” satisfies the classic definition of adverse use: “using it as though he owned the property himself .... ” S.D. Warren Co., 1997 ME 161, ¶ 11, 697 A.2d at 1283. The testimony of eleven different witnesses that the road was used without permission amply supports a finding of adversity. See Eaton, 2000 ME 176, ¶ 34, 760 A.2d at 244.
[¶ 41] The Court’s view that there is no evidence of adverse use appears to stem from an overly restrictive definition of adversity. The Court seems to require a showing of “open and demonstrated hostile intent” by the plaintiffs in order to meet the adversity element. Our case law, however, does not require this showing. As stated above, adversity is proven by a showing of no permission to use the way and that use of the way by the claimant was as though he owned the property himself. S.D. Warren Co., 1997 ME 161, ¶ 11, 697 A.2d at 1283; see also Glidden, 684 A.2d at 1318 n. 19. The Court also overlooks an important distinction: the claim of right required to establish a prescriptive easement is not the same as the claim of right required to establish adverse possession. See Eaton, 2000 ME 176, ¶ 40, 760 A.2d at 246. The adversity element of a prescriptive easement claim requires a disregard for the owner’s right to exclude the user, but not an intent to oust the owner from possession. Dartnell v. Bidwell, 115 *377Me. 227, 230, 98 A. 743, 745 (1916); cf. Striefel v. Charles-Keyt-Leaman P'ship, 1999 ME 111, ¶ 14, 733 A.2d 984, 991-92 (stating that adverse possession requires “disseisin; that is, exclusive possession of another’s land with intent to claim title”). Utilizing the correct definition of adversity, the trial court had sufficient evidence for a finding of adverse use.
III. THE COURT’S NEW PRESUMPTION
[¶ 42] The Court today creates a new presumption to negate the presumption of adversity in prescriptive easement cases, holding that public recreational use of private land is presumed to be permissive. Because this new presumption is based on the use of the land instead of the character of the land, it departs significantly from our established case law.
[¶ 43] The Court justifies its new presumption by claiming that it is not new, but rooted in our precedents. This is incorrect. From Maine’s first year as a state, we have recognized that the law of prescriptive easements developed in the improved, agricultural terrain of England could not be applied without change to the wild lands of Maine. Bethum v. Turner, 1 Me. 111, 115-16 (1820). We first held over one hundred and thirty years ago that use of “open and unenclosed” land is presumed permissive. Mayberry v. Inhabitants of Standish, 56 Me. 342, 353 (1868) (citing Hewins v. Smith, 52 Mass. (11 Met.) 241 (1846)). Early in the last century we explained that this presumption of permission was an exception to the generally applicable presumption of adversity. Thompson v. Bowes, 115 Me. 6, 9-10, 97 A. 1, 1 (1916). In none of our early cases did we indicate that the presumption had anything to do with the use rather than the character of the land. We subsequently applied the presumption to land with a variety of uses, both recreational and non-recreational. E.g., Littlefield v. Hubbard, 124 Me. 299, 304, 128 A. 285, 288 (1925) (applying presumption of permission to use of uncultivated, unenclosed seashore property by hunters, commercial fishermen, people harvesting seaweed, and others).
[¶ 44] Our more recent cases discussing the presumption of permission have involved recreational use, e.g., Augusta Country Club, 477 A.2d at 1130,9 but this is more a reflection of changing land use patterns than of a change in the law. Before today we have never held that the presumption was triggered by the use of the land rather than the wild and uncultivated nature of the land. On the contrary, in the most recent such case we stated: ‘When the land is wild and uncultivated, Maine applies the rule that open and continuous use for the requisite length of time raises a rebuttable presumption that the use was permissive.” Eaton, 2000 ME 176, ¶ 32, 760 A.2d at 244.
[¶ 45] Further indication that a presumption of permission based on the use of the land is an unprecedented innovation comes from looking at authorities from outside Maine, which strongly support a presumption based on the character of the land. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF PROPERTY: SERVITUDES § 2.16 cmt. g (2000) (“Evidence that the claimed ser-*378vient estate was wild, unenclosed, vacant land overcomes the presumption of adverse use in many states, creating a presumption that the use was permissive.”); 4 POWELL ON REAL PROPERTY § 34.10[2][e] (2001) (citing cases from sixteen states holding that presumption of adversity does not apply where land is “open, unenclosed, and unimproved”); 25 AM. JUR. 2D Easements & Licenses § 53 (1996) (citing cases from eleven states holding that there is presumption of permission and/or no presumption of adversity for use of “wild or unenclosed land”); J.J. Marticelli, Annotation, Acquisition by user or prescription of right of way over uninclosed land, 46 A.L.R.2D 1140, 1142-43 & n. 9 (1956) (citing cases from twenty-five states for “prevailing rule” that no presumption of adversity arises for use of unenclosed land). The Court’s holding thus not only departs from our own precedents, but also puts us out of step with the law in other states.
[¶46] The justification offered for this change is that the Court desires to give property owners more protection than our existing law provides against the acquisition of easements by prescription. In one important respect, however, today’s holding apparently makes it easier to acquire a prescriptive easement. Under our case law, any use of wild and uncultivated land has been presumed permissive. See Eaton, 2000 ME 176, ¶ 32, 760 A.2d at 244. By replacing the traditional presumption of permission with one that only applies to public recreational use, the Court gives those who use wild and uncultivated land for private or nonrecreational uses the benefit of the presumption of adversity. The effect of this change in the law is to shift the burden to landowners to prove that, for example, private use for commercial timber harvesting or public use for transportation purposes was permissive.
[¶ 47] Furthermore, we should not make such a significant change in well-established real estate law on the basis of our own notions of public policy. The Legislature has demonstrated its ability to alter the law of prescriptive easements for public policy reasons. See 14 M.R.S.A. § 812 (1980) (providing means of giving notice to prevent acquisition of prescriptive easement); id. § 814 (providing that interest in roads in unorganized territory cannot be acquired by prescription). I can discern no need for the Court to depart from existing law at this time. If reasons exist for changing the settled law in order to strengthen landowners’ rights or encourage public recreation, we should leave such tasks to the Legislature.
[¶ 48] For these reasons, I dissent from the adoption of the new presumption. I would decide the case on the established prescriptive easement law. The evidence in this case was essentially undisputed that the public used the road through the Baptist School’s property for recreational purposes continuously throughout the prescriptive period and that the Baptist School knew of this use and acquiesced in it. The evidence does not compel a finding that the Baptist School actively permitted the public’s use. The trial court’s findings are not clearly erroneous. I would affirm the judgment.

. The defense of permission must be distinguished from acquiescence, which is an element that must be shown (albeit sometimes by presumption) to establish a prescriptive easement. "Acquiescence implies passive assent or submission to the use, as distinguished from the granting of a license or permission given with the intention that the licensee’s use may continue only as long as the owner continues to consent to it.” Stickney v. City of Saco, 2001 ME 69, ¶ 23, 770 A.2d 592, 602 (internal quotation marks omitted). "Acqui*375escence ... does not mean license or permission in the active sense. It means passive assent, or submission.... It is consent by silence.” Dartnell v. Bidwell, 115 Me. 227, 230, 98 A. 743, 745 (1916).

. The Town of Mapleton has maintained the road within the Town for many years and the Baptist School does not dispute that it is a town way. Since the town manager testified that town and county records do not show that the road was ever accepted, it must have become a town way by prescription. See Town of Kittery v. MacKenzie, 2001 ME 170, ¶ 9, 785 A.2d 1251, 1254 (stating that a town way may be created by laying out and acceptance, dedication and acceptance, or prescriptive use).

. Contrary to the Court’s view, it is clear from the Augusta Country Club opinion that the right of way there was located on wild and uncultivated land owned by the country club and located near, but not on, its golf course. See 477 A.2d at 1126. In that opinion we were plainly applying the existing presumption based on the character of the land, not inventing a new presumption based on the use, as is shown by our reliance there on our older cases. Id. at 1130 (citing Piper v. Voorhees, 130 Me. 305, 312, 155 A. 556, 560 (1931); Littlefield, 124 Me. at 304, 128 A. at 288; Mayberry, 56 Me. at 353).