Smith v. Carmody

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: December 22, 2007
• Docket: CUMre-07-108
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO: RE-07-109~ c_ 1<. p.. -C lA tv,- !OJ,. /~')~/~ 0° ~/ TINAMARIE SMITH and GORDON K. SMITH

Plaintiffs, ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' v. MOTION FOR SUMMARY ;J."i~A.; JUDGMENT

DAVID L. CARMODY and -•.. -/ 1.<_ l.UU~ \~At\ ... ­ ELIZABETH M. CARMODY

Defenc1aAts.

MAINE BANK AND TRUST COMPANY,

Party-in-Interest

This case comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Tinamarie Smith and

Gordon K. Smith's (the "Smiths") Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to

M.R. Civ. P. 56.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND The issue in this case is whether a utility easement, granted for the benefit

of Defendants David and Elizabeth Carmody (the "Carmodys) and Carl and

Gloria Bomhard (the "Bomhards") (Defendants) has been abandoned. The

Smiths filed their complaint against twenty-one defendants and eleven parties in

interest requesting that the Court declare that a certain utility easement had been

extinguished by abandonment and that the Smiths' property was no longer

encumbered by the utility easement.

The Court entered two default judgments against several of the named

parties for failing to answer the complaint. Defendants remaining at the filing of

summary judgment on August 31, 2007 were David and Elizabeth Carmody (the

1 "Carmodys), Carl and Gloria Bomhard (the "Bomhards"), Anne Dunne and

David Little. Maine Bank and Trust Company was the sole party in interest who

answered the complaint. Of the remaining parties only the Carmodys and the

Bomhards responded in a timely manner in opposi tion to the Smiths' motion for

summary judgment. 1

The easement at issue was created by the Smiths' successor in interest,

Theresa M. Desfoses (Ms. Desfoses), when she conveyed a twenty-acre portion of

her twenty-five acre property in Scarborough, Maine to Hemlock Associates (the

"Benefited Parcel"). As part of the conveyance, Ms. Desfoses granted, in the

deed, a thirty-foot wide, four hundred and seventy foot long easement,

encumbering her property, which allowed for the placement, replacement,

maintenance and repair of underground utility lines (Utility Easement) to the

Benefited Parcel.

Hemlock Associates subsequently developed the Benefited Parcel into the

Woodgate subdivision, but did not utilize the Utility Easement in its

development of the property. The Carmodys assert, however, that Verizon has

used a portion of the Utility Easement for their benefit. The Carmodys further

assert that the Utility Easement may be used in the future to lay sewer lines.

, The Smiths claim that the Utility Easement was extinguished by

abandonment because it was not used for its intended purpose of laying utility

lines for the Woodgate subdivision. They acknowledge the disputed fact that

Verizon may have utilized a twenty-foot portion of the Utility Easement but

1 Carl Barnhard filed a pro se opposition to the Smiths' motion for summary judgment, but did not comply with M.R. Civ. P. 56 because he did not file a statement of material facts. Consequently, with respect to the Barnhard opposition, all statements of material fact offered by the Smiths will be deemed admitted because they were not properly controverted. See M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(4).

2 assert that the remaining four hundred and fifty feet of the Utility Easement have

been abandoned and thus extinguished.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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 Levine v. R.B.K. Caly Corp., 2001 ME 77, err 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, err 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,

A.2d 573, 575. "If material facts are disputed, the dispute must be resolved

through fact-finding." Curtis v. Porter, 2001 ME 158,

"The standards for summary judgment in favor of a party with the

burden of proof may be somewhat different, as the fact finder has the

prerogative to disbelieve a wimess and other affirmative evidence, even if that

evidence is uncontradicted." Alexander, The Maine Rules of Civil Procedure with

Advisory and Committee Notes § 56.1.4 (citing Dionne v. LeClerc, 2006 NIB 34, err 15,

896 A.2d 923, 929). At this stage, the facts are reviewed "in the light most

favorable to the nonmoving party." Lightfoot v. sch. Admin. Dist. No. 35, 2003 ME

24, err 6, 816 A.2d 63, 65.

DISCUSSION

At issue is whether the Utility Easement has been extinguished by

abandonment through misuse and because it was not used by Hemlock

Associates for its established purpose. To prove that an easement was

extinguished by abandonment, the moving party must show "(1) a history of

3 nonuse coupled with an act or omission evincing a clear intent to abandon

(emphasis added), or (2) adverse possession by the servient estate." Rutland v.

Mullen, 2002 ME 98, enen 8-9, 798 A.2d 1104, 1109 (citations omitted). The Smiths

assert prong one as the relevant inquiry. They do not assert that Defendants did

not have an easement, but that the easement was abandoned.

Mere non-use is insufficient to prove an intent to abandon an easement.

Id. A party must show "unequivocal acts inconsistent with the further assertion

of rights associated with the existence of the easement." Id. Such unequivocal

acts were found when an easement holder "quitclaimed all rights, title and

interest in a twenty-six foot-wide strip of land in front of its property ... to the

State." Canadian Nat'] Ry. v. Sprague, 609 A.2d 1175, 1179 (Me. 1992). In contrast,

the fact that an easement holder allowed the servient tenant to park cars blocking

the easement and allowed the easement to become overgrown was deemed

insufficient to establish a clear intent to abandon the easement. Rutland, 2002 ME

98, en 11, 798 A.2d at 1110.

In this case, the Smiths acknowledge the disputed fact that a portion of

the Utility Easement may have been used to lay utility lines but assert that

Hemlock Associates never used the Utility Easement for its intended purpose.

Consequently, they assert, at least 450 feet of the Utility Easement has been

abandoned. The Smiths have offered no evidence, however, of an act or

omission by the easement holders evincing a clear intent to abandon the

easement. Accordingly, summary judgment is inappropriate because genuine

issues of material fact remain in dispute regarding an essential element

regarding intent to abandon an easement.

4 II. Party-in-Interest

At hearing, Party-in-Interest Maine Bank and Trust Company withdrew

its opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.

Therefore, the entry is:

Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendants is DENIED.

Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment against Party-in-Interest Maine Bank and Trust Company is GRANTED.

The clerk shall incorporate this Order into the docket by reference pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).

5 DAVID MCCONNELL ESQ PO BOX 426 PORTLAND ME 04112

F COURTS md County ~ox 287 ne 0411 2-0287

JOSEPH MAZZIOTTI ESQ PO BOX 3589 PORTLAND ME 04104

='IIU VUUIILY

30x 287 ne 04112-0287

C ALAN BEAGLE ESQ PO BOX 7044 PORTLAND ME 04112