STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND. ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION /' LESLIE COHEN as SOLE TRUSTEE OF RED REALTY TRUST, et al. L - a 1 Plaintiffs ~~Fc~IVED U
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT v.
ARTHUR SCHWARTZ, et al. DONALD L. GARBRECH? LAW FIRRAI\"V Defendants
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment on Count I of the complaint, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 56(c).
BACKGROUND
1. The Parties.
This case revolves around disputed rights of access to the beach at Sebago
Lake in Naples, Maine, and ownership of lakefront property. The Plaintiffs in
t h s case (who will be referred to collectively as "Plaintiffs") are all owners of
property near Sebago Lake. Plaintiff Leslie Cohen is trustee of the Red Realty
Trust ("RRT") and Whte Realty Trust ("WRY), both of whch were established
in 1990. RRT owns Lot 71 on Tax Map U-19 ("the tax map"). Its lot ownership
includes the right to use reserved areas and private ways on the 1932 Plan
(generally referred to as "usage rights"). WWT owns Lot 68 on the tax map.
Cohen is also Personal Representative of the Estate of Douglas M. Schair, whch
owns Lots 75 and 81-3. Plaintiffs Robert and Yvette Kaszynski, Andrew Shulman and Richard
Shulman, Joan and John Sizer, James and Janice Sizer, and Edwyna Cole and
Kevin Cole all own various lots depicted on the tax map.' The Defendants,
Arthur and Faith Schwartz ("Defendants") own Lot 70, whch is the subject of
this dispute.
2. Back~roundand the Instant Action.
In 1932, Naples Corporation owned much of the real property now owned
by the parties to this case. Its lots are depicted on the "Songo Bayou and
Extension Plan," and this plan shows what later became the properties of several
of the parties.' In 1937, a revised plan was developed, whch adjusts lot lines.
The 1937 plan also depicts the current right of way ("ROW) west of the
Schwartz lot, w h c h allegedly provides access to the lake for those property
owners not abutting it.
In 1985, David and Sandra Snow conveyed to Faith Schwartz certain lots
on Sebago Lake referred to as Lots A, B, and C, and now collectively known as
Lot 70.3 Since that time, Defendants have used a residence on Lot 70 as their
summer vacation home. They spend approximately fifteen weeks a year in that
home, w h c h has a waterfront view. Defendants have also maintained and
improved their property, along with the ROW and beach. Plaintiffs allege that
they have also helped to maintain the ROW.
Ma jorie Smith was also a named Plaintiff, but she passed away shortly after suit was filed. See Plaintiff's Complaint for the various lot numbers. 2 The Plan is recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds at Deed Book 21, Page 7. The chain of title is as follows: the Snows obtained title to Parcels A, B, and C from Arthur and Marjorie Marks in 1984. Parcel A: Naples Corporation to Glancy in 1939; Glancy to Goldstein in 1946; Goldstein to Wolfman in 1946; Wolfman to Goldstein in 1948; and Goldstein to Marks in 1955. Parcel B: Naples Corp. to Burnell in 1938; Burnell to Goldstein in 1944; and Goldstein to Marks in 1955. Parcel C: Naples Corp. to Goldstein in 1945; and Goldstein to Marks in 1955. Plaintiffs allege that, since Defendants acquired their land in 1985,
Defendants have made unfounded claims to own the ROW and certain portions
of the beach, and have threatened to prevent Plaintiffs from using it.
Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have moved pins marking the
ROW and have tried to obstruct it with objects such as propane tanks. More
active efforts at obstruction have allegedly occurred since Summer 2004.
Plaintiffs claim to have used the ROW and reserved areas for over 20 years,
consistently and in an open and notorious manner, without permission of
Defendants. Plaintiffs contend that the 1985 conveyance to Defendants did not
include an ownership interest in the ROW running between Lots A and C, whch
Defendants d i ~ p u t e Plaintiffs .~ use the ROW to access the beach area for
recreation. Defendants contend that they have acted as owners of the ROW and
beach areas since 1985. They claim that they did g v e Plaintiffs permission to use
the ROW and beach, but have recently threatened to revoke it because Plaintiffs
have harassed them, interfered with their dock and boats, and trespassed on
their "private beach."
In November 2005, Plaintiffs filed a three-count complaint. Count I seeks
a declaratory judgment that: (1)the beach is part of a reserved area on the 1932
plan; (2) the ROW is an unnumbered area in the 1932 plan; (3) Defendants have
no ownershp interest in the beach at the end of the ROW or 60' to the west of the
ROW; and (4) Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys' fees and costs. Count I1 seeks
an injunction to prevent Defendants from interfering with Plaintiffs' right to use
4 There has also been some dispute about a 1992 quitclaim deed to Faith Schwartz purporting to confirm the title transferred in the 1985 deed, and Plaintiffs question its validity. As it makes no warranties of title, and the 1985 deed provides a sufficient basis for deciding this motion, this Court will not address the legality of that deed at this time. the ROW for beach access and to use reserved areas. They also request an order
for the Defendants to stop interfering with their recreational use of the area,
including the use of the dock and moorings, and to stop interfering with their
general use and enjoyment. Count I11 presents an alternative argument that the
Plaintiffs at least have a prescriptive easement to use the ROW and reserved
areas.
Defendants deny Plaintiffs' allegations of interference and raise several
affirmative defenses, including estoppel, laches, waiver, and adverse possession,
among other arguments. They also filed a counterclaim for statutory trespass,
permanent injunctive relief to prevent Plaintiffs from interfering with their use
and enjoyment, and a declaratory judgment that they own the path and disputed
beach area. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have permissive access rights, but
that Plaintiffs have caused damage to their property and removed barriers they
put up to block access.
Plaintiffs now move for partial summary judgment on Count I of their
complaint. First, they argue that Defendants have no ownership interest in the
ROW or the beach because the 1985 deed did not convey such rights.5 They
further contend that Defendants own land at the shore of Parcel B, subject to the
rights of others in the development to use it. They seek summary judgment on
Count I with a declaration that the beach is part of the reserved area that
everyone may access, that the shoreline at the edge of Defendants' Lot B is also a
reserved area that all Plaintiffs are entitled to use, and that the ROW is an
unnumbered area on the 1932 plan.
As previously mentioned, they argue that the 1992 deed was "legally infirm." Additionally, Plaintiffs contend that that area had already been conveyed to Wildwood Association, the subdivision. Due to a consented-to motion for stay of discovery pending resolution of
this motion, Defendants contend that this Court may only answer the question of
whether Defendants have an ownership interest. They claim that all other issues
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND. ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION /' LESLIE COHEN as SOLE TRUSTEE OF RED REALTY TRUST, et al. L - a 1 Plaintiffs ~~Fc~IVED U
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT v.
ARTHUR SCHWARTZ, et al. DONALD L. GARBRECH? LAW FIRRAI\"V Defendants
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment on Count I of the complaint, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 56(c).
BACKGROUND
1. The Parties.
This case revolves around disputed rights of access to the beach at Sebago
Lake in Naples, Maine, and ownership of lakefront property. The Plaintiffs in
t h s case (who will be referred to collectively as "Plaintiffs") are all owners of
property near Sebago Lake. Plaintiff Leslie Cohen is trustee of the Red Realty
Trust ("RRT") and Whte Realty Trust ("WRY), both of whch were established
in 1990. RRT owns Lot 71 on Tax Map U-19 ("the tax map"). Its lot ownership
includes the right to use reserved areas and private ways on the 1932 Plan
(generally referred to as "usage rights"). WWT owns Lot 68 on the tax map.
Cohen is also Personal Representative of the Estate of Douglas M. Schair, whch
owns Lots 75 and 81-3. Plaintiffs Robert and Yvette Kaszynski, Andrew Shulman and Richard
Shulman, Joan and John Sizer, James and Janice Sizer, and Edwyna Cole and
Kevin Cole all own various lots depicted on the tax map.' The Defendants,
Arthur and Faith Schwartz ("Defendants") own Lot 70, whch is the subject of
this dispute.
2. Back~roundand the Instant Action.
In 1932, Naples Corporation owned much of the real property now owned
by the parties to this case. Its lots are depicted on the "Songo Bayou and
Extension Plan," and this plan shows what later became the properties of several
of the parties.' In 1937, a revised plan was developed, whch adjusts lot lines.
The 1937 plan also depicts the current right of way ("ROW) west of the
Schwartz lot, w h c h allegedly provides access to the lake for those property
owners not abutting it.
In 1985, David and Sandra Snow conveyed to Faith Schwartz certain lots
on Sebago Lake referred to as Lots A, B, and C, and now collectively known as
Lot 70.3 Since that time, Defendants have used a residence on Lot 70 as their
summer vacation home. They spend approximately fifteen weeks a year in that
home, w h c h has a waterfront view. Defendants have also maintained and
improved their property, along with the ROW and beach. Plaintiffs allege that
they have also helped to maintain the ROW.
Ma jorie Smith was also a named Plaintiff, but she passed away shortly after suit was filed. See Plaintiff's Complaint for the various lot numbers. 2 The Plan is recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds at Deed Book 21, Page 7. The chain of title is as follows: the Snows obtained title to Parcels A, B, and C from Arthur and Marjorie Marks in 1984. Parcel A: Naples Corporation to Glancy in 1939; Glancy to Goldstein in 1946; Goldstein to Wolfman in 1946; Wolfman to Goldstein in 1948; and Goldstein to Marks in 1955. Parcel B: Naples Corp. to Burnell in 1938; Burnell to Goldstein in 1944; and Goldstein to Marks in 1955. Parcel C: Naples Corp. to Goldstein in 1945; and Goldstein to Marks in 1955. Plaintiffs allege that, since Defendants acquired their land in 1985,
Defendants have made unfounded claims to own the ROW and certain portions
of the beach, and have threatened to prevent Plaintiffs from using it.
Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have moved pins marking the
ROW and have tried to obstruct it with objects such as propane tanks. More
active efforts at obstruction have allegedly occurred since Summer 2004.
Plaintiffs claim to have used the ROW and reserved areas for over 20 years,
consistently and in an open and notorious manner, without permission of
Defendants. Plaintiffs contend that the 1985 conveyance to Defendants did not
include an ownership interest in the ROW running between Lots A and C, whch
Defendants d i ~ p u t e Plaintiffs .~ use the ROW to access the beach area for
recreation. Defendants contend that they have acted as owners of the ROW and
beach areas since 1985. They claim that they did g v e Plaintiffs permission to use
the ROW and beach, but have recently threatened to revoke it because Plaintiffs
have harassed them, interfered with their dock and boats, and trespassed on
their "private beach."
In November 2005, Plaintiffs filed a three-count complaint. Count I seeks
a declaratory judgment that: (1)the beach is part of a reserved area on the 1932
plan; (2) the ROW is an unnumbered area in the 1932 plan; (3) Defendants have
no ownershp interest in the beach at the end of the ROW or 60' to the west of the
ROW; and (4) Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys' fees and costs. Count I1 seeks
an injunction to prevent Defendants from interfering with Plaintiffs' right to use
4 There has also been some dispute about a 1992 quitclaim deed to Faith Schwartz purporting to confirm the title transferred in the 1985 deed, and Plaintiffs question its validity. As it makes no warranties of title, and the 1985 deed provides a sufficient basis for deciding this motion, this Court will not address the legality of that deed at this time. the ROW for beach access and to use reserved areas. They also request an order
for the Defendants to stop interfering with their recreational use of the area,
including the use of the dock and moorings, and to stop interfering with their
general use and enjoyment. Count I11 presents an alternative argument that the
Plaintiffs at least have a prescriptive easement to use the ROW and reserved
areas.
Defendants deny Plaintiffs' allegations of interference and raise several
affirmative defenses, including estoppel, laches, waiver, and adverse possession,
among other arguments. They also filed a counterclaim for statutory trespass,
permanent injunctive relief to prevent Plaintiffs from interfering with their use
and enjoyment, and a declaratory judgment that they own the path and disputed
beach area. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have permissive access rights, but
that Plaintiffs have caused damage to their property and removed barriers they
put up to block access.
Plaintiffs now move for partial summary judgment on Count I of their
complaint. First, they argue that Defendants have no ownership interest in the
ROW or the beach because the 1985 deed did not convey such rights.5 They
further contend that Defendants own land at the shore of Parcel B, subject to the
rights of others in the development to use it. They seek summary judgment on
Count I with a declaration that the beach is part of the reserved area that
everyone may access, that the shoreline at the edge of Defendants' Lot B is also a
reserved area that all Plaintiffs are entitled to use, and that the ROW is an
unnumbered area on the 1932 plan.
As previously mentioned, they argue that the 1992 deed was "legally infirm." Additionally, Plaintiffs contend that that area had already been conveyed to Wildwood Association, the subdivision. Due to a consented-to motion for stay of discovery pending resolution of
this motion, Defendants contend that this Court may only answer the question of
whether Defendants have an ownership interest. They claim that all other issues
may not be resolved, as full discovery has not yet occurred. Also, they ask this
Court to enter judgment for Defendants recognizing their ownershp interest in
the beach and ROW.
DISCUSSION
1. Summary Tudgment Standard.
Summary judgment is proper where there exist no genuine issues of
material fact such that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. M.R. Civ. P. 56(c);see also Lmine v. R. B.K. Caly Corp., 2001 ME 77, q[ 4, 770
A.2d 653,655. A genuine issue is raised "when sufficient evidence requires a
fact-finder to choose between competing versions of the truth at trial." Parrish v.
Wright, 2003 ME 90, q[ 8, 828 A.2d 778, 781. A material fact is a fact that has "the
potential to affect the outcome of the suit." Burdzel v. Sobus, 2000 ME 84, q[ 6, 750
A.2d 573,575. "If material facts are disputed, the dispute must be resolved
through fact-finding." Curtis v. Porter, 2001 ME 158, q[ 7, 784 A.2d 18, 22. When
a defendant seeks summary judgment, a "plaintiff must establish a prima facie
case for each element of her cause of action." Champagne v. Mid-Maine Med. Ctr.,
1998 ME 87, q[ 9,711 A.2d 842, 845. At tlus stage, the facts are reviewed "in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Lightfoot v. Sch. Adnzin. Dist. No.
35,2003 ME 24, ql6,816 A.2d 63,65.
2. Is Summary Tudgment Warranted on the Claim for Declaratory Jud~ment? Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment per 14 M.R.S. 5 5951 (2005). "An
action for declaratory judgment is appropriate for the determination of the
validity . . . of a deed." Colquhoun v. Webber, 684 A.2d 405,411 (Me. 1996)
(citations omitted). This is a long-recognized method by which a person can
obtain "a binding judicial determination of [his or her] legal rights" in property.
Id.
Plaintiffs seek partial summary judgment on Count I of their complaint,
but as Defendants correctly note, some of the issues in Count I cannot be
resolved at this juncture as a result of the May 2006 consented to motion to stay
discovery. Due to the stay, Defendants have not yet had the opportunity to
address potential disputes of fact surrounding the implications of reserved areas
and other matters. Therefore, this Court will only address the issue of whether
Defendants have an ownership interest in the ROW and the beach outside their
summer residence.
Defendants claim an ownership interest in the beach area west of the
right of way, as well as the right of way itself, by virtue of a 1985 deed.
"Construction of a deed. . . is a question of law." River Dale Assn. v. Bloss, 2006
ME 86, ql6, 901 A.2d 809, 811. To interpret a deed, this Court first studies its
"plain meaning," but when the "language is ambiguous, then extrinsic evidence
may be consulted to ascertain the grantor's intent." Id.
The Law Court addressed similar issues concerning the same subdivision
in an earlier case, holding that the plaintiffs had an easement to use their
neighbors' beachfront property for recreation. Chase v. Eastman, 563 A.2d 1099,
1104 (Me. 1989). There, the Court described the history of the subdivision and
the purpose of areas designated as "reserved" or "reservation" on 1931 and 1932 plans, whch was "to provide the purchasers of inland lots with access to and use
of the waterfront." Id. at 1100. In Chase, the conveyances included language that
read: "The right in common with others to use the private ways . . . and also the
right to use the parcels marked 'Reservations' on said plan." Id.
The 1985 deed in this case provides a legal description of all three
Schwartz parcels and is a warranty deed. Included in the legal description for all
three parcels is the following language: "Together with a right of way in
common with others" that is 20 feet wide and runs along the northern or
northeastern boundary. T h s language gives Defendants an ownershp interest
in the right of way, which is also clearly subject to the use of others. As depicted
on the tax map, the right of way connects the road with the lakeshore. It is the
method by which inland property owners access both the road and the lake.
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Defendants for purposes of
deciding 131aintiffs' motion, the deed evidences an ownership interest of
Defendants in the right of way, but the plain language of the deed makes that
interest subject to others' rights of access.
Turning to the beach issue, the 1985 deed also states that the property is
conveyed "[tlogether with a right to use in common with others the section
marked 'Reserved' on the above mentioned plan." Therefore, even the beach
area that is technically part of Lot 70 is subject to common usage. This language
is almost identical to the language in Clzase, which concerned the same general
area on Sebago Lake. Even if the language were somewhat ambiguous, the
intent of the parties in all of these transactions seems to be to preserve the
community's access to the waterfront, whle respecting the property rights of
other community members. As the Law Court stated in Chase, the reserved areas were intended to allow people who were not situated on the waterfront to access
the lake for recreational activity. T h s does not leave Defendants without
recourse to address trespassers who are not property owners, or disputes that
arise with other community residents who use the ROW and beach. The partial
summary judgment motion is granted in favor of Defendants on the issue of
ownership and in favor of Plaintiffs on usage rights for both the ROW and beach.
This Court specifically finds that Defendants cannot exclude Plaintiffs from
accessing the ROW or reserved area. Other issues in Count I will not be resolved
until discovery has taken place.
4. Adverse Possession and Prescriptive Easement.
Alternatively, Defendants argue that they own that portion of the beach
and the right of way by virtue of adverse possession, and Plaintiffs argue that
their usage rights stem from prescriptive easement. Both theories of property
rights have some elements in common. To acquire title by adverse possession,
the claimant must show "that its possession and use of the property were: (1)
actual; (2) open; (3) visible; (4) notorious; (5)hostile; (6) under a claim of right; (7)
continuous; (8) exclusive; and (9) of a duration exceeding the twenty-year
limitations period." Striefel v. Charles-Keyt-Leaman Pshp., 1999 ME 111, ¶ 6, 733
A.2d 984,989 (quotations omitted).
The key element in this case is hostility. The Striefel court described
hostility as indicating that "the possessor does not have the true owner's
permission to be on the land." 1999 ME 111, ql13, 733 A.2d at 991. Here,
Defendants' use was not hostile to the true owner because they themselves have
an ownershp interest in the land, subject, of course, to their neighbors' aforementioned rights of usage. One who has a deeded ownership interest need
not, and cannot, establish ownershp by adverse possession.
The elements of a prescriptive easement are: "(1)continuous use (2) for at
least twenty years (3) under a claim of right adverse to the owner, (4) with h s
knowledge and acquiescence, or (5) a use so open, notorious, visible, and
uninterrupted that knowledge and acquiescence will be presumed." Sandmaier v.
Tahoe Dev. Group, 2005 ME 126, q[ 5, 887 A.2d 517,518. Plaintiffs have difficulty
with the "knowledge and acquiescence" element. There were some extended
periods of time in which Defendants either overtly allowed or did not oppose
Plaintiffs' access to the ROW and beach, but there were also times when
Defendants objected to certain uses and/or access.
Additionally, although they dispute the validity of the claim, since
Defendants acquired the property in 1985, they have claimed to own the entire
area, including the ROW and beach. The evidence establishes their knowledge of
Plaintiffs' use, but it does not reveal acquiescence to unlimited use by Plaintiffs.
Indeed, the evidence establishes that Defendants at times contacted various
Plaintiffs to object to their actions, including placing boats on the beach behind
their house, using docks, and leaving beach chairs and other items in the
reserved area. Finally, proving a prescriptive easement is unnecessary because
all property owners in the development have a deeded right to use the ROW and
reserved beach areas. Both the adverse possession and prescriptive easement
claims must fail.
The entry is:
Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of summary judgment is GRANTED on the issue of their usage rights and DENIED on the issue of ownership interest and all other issues in Count I of the complaint. T h s Court declares that Defendants have a deeded ownership interest in the right of way, subject to Plaintiffs' right of access.
The clerk shall incoruorate this Order into the docket bv reference pursuant to M.R. ~ i ; . P. 79(a).
DATE:
Justice,@erior Court COURTS d County K 287 ? 041 12-0287
DAVID JOHNSON E S Q 1 0 0 MIDDLE S T R E E T E A S T TOWER PORTLAND ME 0 4 1 0 1 / f'
F COURTS 3nd County 30x 287 ne 041 12-0287
GLENN I S R A E L E S Q P O BOX 9 7 2 9 / PORTLAND 04104