One of the two families suing each other over the right to access a neighborhood beach is asking a judge to end the long-running legal battle and declare the contested property a ācommon areaā for the subdivision.
But for a judge to make that decision, the facts would have to be indisputable ā something Superior Court Justice Thomas McKeon struggled with Monday while he spent an hour squinting at old, ambiguous maps of the Popham Beach Estates subdivision in Phippsburg.
āHow can I find as a matter of law ā¦ that this blotch on this map is a common area where everyone has a right to use an easement, while itās ambiguous?ā McKeon said.
McKeon said he expects to make a decision āsooner rather than later.ā If he rules against the motion, the case is headed for trial.
RULING COULD SET PRECEDENT
Richard and Sheila Tappen sued their neighbors, the Hill family, in Sagadahoc County Superior Court in April 2022 after buying about 3.5 acres of land from another neighbor that March.Ā They said the Hills were trespassing on their property by using it to access the beach.
The disputed propertyĀ includes roughly 3 acres of sandy beachfront in front of both cottages,Ā which are separated by two vacant lots.
It also includes some property that the Hillsā deck and walking path encroach on, but the Tappensā attorney said in court that they donāt have the evidence to force the Hills to remove the structure because it has been there for more than 40 years.
The Hill family says the Tappens donāt have anyĀ ownership claim and therefore have noĀ right to restrict other subdivision residents from accessing this land. They argue that subdivision maps from the 1880s, 1890s and 1920s have always treated it as a ācommon area,ā where neighborhood roadways dead end, āproviding direct access to the unallocated land for all property owners within the Popham Beach Estates subdivision.ā
āIf a person can wake up in the morning and post a āno trespassingā sign on a beach that a family has been playing on or recreating on for three generations, then whatās to stop somebody else from doing that any other day?ā Benjamin Ford, the Hillsā lawyer, said on Monday.
If it was a designated common area, then why wasnāt it labeled as such, the Tappensā attorney, Glenn Israel, asked the court.
Israel said just because the land was āblankā doesnāt mean it was for common use.Ā The developer still owned it, he said.
āI think it would be very dangerous to make that the new law of the land and that every time a developer leaves a blank space on a subdivision plan, it loses control of that space forever,ā Israel said.
STILL UNCLEAR WHO OWNS WHAT
The Tappens said they bought the rights to the land in question through a ārelease deedā signed by Mary McNamara, who is now deceased.
A release deed allows someone to sell any interest they have in a piece of land even without definitely knowing what that interest is, so it was unclear when the Tappens sued what they actually owned. The question was one McKeon returned to several times during Mondayās hearing.
The Tappens originally said they owned the beachfront from the dunes to the low-water mark. One of their attorneys told the Press Herald last year that the family was suing the Hills in part because they wanted to protect the dunes from further erosion. But a new expert witness for the Tappens says they only own the wet sand area in front of the dunes, from the high-water mark to the low-water mark, called the intertidal zone.
The Tappens said they donāt object to people using that area for fishing, fowling and navigating, which Maineās highest court said the public has a right to do in intertidal zones,Ā even when theyāre privately owned.
Ford said the Tappens are moving the goalposts.
āWe spent two years litigating this case, we spent all kinds of money with them saying āYouāre trespassingā and us saying āNo weāre not,ā ā Ford said. āWhat are we supposed to do when we go to trial? What is the Tappensā claim here? Why do the boundaries keep shifting?ā
Israel said that the Tappensā base claim hasnāt changed ā his clients donāt want the Hills trespassing on property they own, and they disagree with the Hills that the property belongs to the entire subdivision.
Israel also pointed out that some maps show that the dune area belongs to other property owners, who arenāt involved in this case.
āTheyāre trespassing ā just on someone elseās property,ā Israel said.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have a commenting profile? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Hereās why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.