Poire v. Manchester
| Decision Date | 28 March 1986 |
| Citation | 506 A.2d 1160 |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
| Parties | Pauline POIRE, et al. v. Lawrence MANCHESTER, et al. |
Lowell D. Weeks (orally), North Windham, for plaintiff.
Patricia C. Coughlan (orally), Brian R. Olson, North Windham, for Lawrence Manchester.
Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, Joyce A. Wheeler (orally), Portland, for Scott Paper Co.
Before McKUSICK, C.J., and NICHOLS, ROBERTS, WATHEN and SCOLNIK, JJ.
The defendant, Lawrence W. Manchester, owner and operator of the Sebago Lake Basin Campground, located in North Windham, appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court (Cumberland County) entered on an order that permanently enjoined him from allowing his business invitees to use a sand beach adjacent to Sebago Lake. The plaintiffs, Pauline Poire and fourteen other cottage owners, and the defendant own land benefited by an identical easement in common with others for the use of the beach for boating and bathing purposes. The defendant, Scott Paper Company is the record title owner of the beach. 1 On appeal, Manchester contends that the court erred in construing the language of the easement and the scope of his rights thereunder by limiting the use of his easement rights to property owners claiming through him. We affirm the judgment.
In the early 1930's, S.D. Warren Company (S.D. Warren) owned a parcel of land adjacent to Sebago Lake that included the beach. Company officials wanted to convey cottage lots on and near the beach to its employees but did not have adequate access to the proposed lots. Defendant Lawrence Manchester's father, Warren Manchester, owned a 250 acre parcel adjacent to both the lake and the S.D. Warren property but did not have either access to the beach or the right to use it. In 1935, S.D. Warren and Warren Manchester agreed to exchange deeds. By this exchange, S.D. Warren obtained a right-of-way over Manchester's land to the proposed cottage lots, and in return, granted to Manchester and "his heirs and assigns forever, The right to use in common with the grantor and others lawfully entitled thereto, the beach ... for the purposes of bathing and boating...."
At the time of the exchange, Warren Manchester operated a farm on his land. During the summer months, he allowed five families to tent near the lake for a fee, but did not operate a camping business. By 1935, the father had sold twelve lots along the lake for cottages. After the exchange, S.D. Warren sold its cottage lots to its employees and others. To each lot owner the company conveyed a beach use easement identical to that in the written grant to Manchester's father. Between 1935 and 1949, no additional lots of the Manchester property were sold. 2 Between 1948 and 1958, the defendant, Lawrence Manchester, sold six lots, conveying to the purchasers an identical beach-use easement to that contained in the grant from S.D. Warren.
In 1958, Manchester started to operate on his property a commercial campground containing twenty-five camping sites. In 1961, a "gentlemen's agreement" was reached between Manchester and some of the plaintiffs, as well as the predecessors in interest of the remaining plaintiffs, in which Manchester agreed to erect and maintain a fence dividing the beach in half, one side for the campers, the other side for the cottage owners. Over the years Manchester expanded the camping facilities so that by 1984 approximately 170 sites were available for use, forty to fifty of which were occupied by families who resided seasonally at the campground.
The occupancy rate at the campground averages four campers per campsite. Accordingly, the increase in campsites has caused the beach to become overcrowded during the summer months. The total beach frontage is less than 400 feet. The beach itself is divided by a dike; the beach area north of the dike is called Basin Beach while the beach to the south is named Dike Beach. On an average summer day, approximately 100 to 150 campers use Basin Beach while only thirty to forty cottage owners make use of it. On Dike Beach, the overcrowding is not as severe nor is the comparative use as disproportionate. Of a total of forty-five to fifty-five people who utilize the beach, twenty to thirty are campers. 3 Since there is limited public access to the shores of Sebago Lake, members of the general public make frequent use of the beach. Cottage owners find it difficult to devise a method for denying the public access to the beach because of an inability to differentiate legitimate campers from trespassers.
On May 17, 1984, Manchester removed the fence that divided the beach because, for one reason, he needed more beach area for his campers. After the fence was removed by Manchester and reerected by the plaintiffs several times, the plaintiffs commenced this action seeking inter alia a declaration of the rights of the parties. Following a non-jury trial, which included a view of the property in question, the Superior Court found that Manchester had overburdened the easement. Judgment was entered permanently enjoining Manchester from allowing his business invitees to use the beach thereby limiting the use of the beach to his guests, lessees and tenants. This appeal followed.
The sole issue in this case is whether the campground expansion that resulted in a larger number of individuals making use of the easement has unreasonably interfered with the use and enjoyment of the beach rights held in common by others. Each party's grant provides that his right to use the beach is one to be shared "in common with the grantor and others lawfully entitled thereto." Each easement holder's right may only be asserted to the point where its exercise does not infringe the reasonable use and enjoyment of the beach by other holders of an identical easement. See Leabo v. Leninski, 182 Conn. 611, 438 A.2d 1153 (1981); Wheeler v. Lynch, 445 A.2d 646 (D.C.1982). Accordingly, the correlative rights of the parties are determined by applying a reasonableness test. Such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Britton v. Maine Dept. of Conservation
...the others; the question as between them is whether the use made by one is reasonable and consistent with the corresponding use by the rest." Id. In case it is uncontested that the State has a right to lease its submerged lands to both public and private interests with the directive to not ......
-
Flaherty v. Muther
...whether the contested use made of the servient estate by the dominant estate exceeds the rights granted to the user.” Poire v. Manchester, 506 A.2d 1160, 1163 (Me.1986). A dominant estate owner may not use an easement to access property that the parties to the conveyance did not originally ......
-
Flaherty v. Muther
...involved in the dispute. Poire v. Manchester, 506 A.2d 1160, 1162-63 (Me. 1986). The touchstone of both tests is reasonableness of the use. Id.; see Hermansen & Richards, MSBA Practice Series, Maine Roads and Easements § 3.5.2.4. The first test, the so-called "Overburdening Analysis" is use......
-
Flaherty v. Muther
...for an overburdening claim. The test employed depends on the relationship of the parties involved in the dispute. Poire v. Manchester, 506 A.2d 1160, 1162-63 (Me. 1986). The touchstone of both tests is reasonableness of the use. Id.; see also Hermansen & Richards, MSBA Practice Series, Main......