STRONG – The latest court proceeding in an 11-year-old dispute over access rights of a privately-held road concluded this month, with Franklin County Superior Court Justice William Stokes upholding a previous ruling and finding several members of a local family in contempt.
The dispute between the Lambert and Voter families over the Dickey Road, also known as the Old Taylor Hill Road, stretches back to 2003. The road is privately owned by the Lamberts. In the past, that road and two, connected logging roads provided access for the Voter family, who own back lots near the Lambert’s property. According to Stokes’ decision, this arrangement ended in 2003-04 after the Lamberts noticed more significant traffic along the Dickey Road and learned that a camp was being constructed on one of the lots.
According to the summary of the facts that accompanied Stokes’ ruling, Roger Lambert spoke with Eunice Voter Shurtleff about needing to arrange a right of way for Voter use of the Dickey Road and other, attached roads.
“Mrs. Shurtleff replied that she did not need a right of way or the Lamberts’ permission to use the roads,” Stokes wrote.
The Lamberts eventually hired an attorney who, in a letter mailed to the Voter family, took the position that there was no public easement over the Dickey Road and that the Voters did not have an “express or implied right of way across the Lamberts’ property.” The Voters filed a lawsuit in 2005, claiming that they were entitled to use the disputed roads. The Lamberts filed a counterclaim, seeking an injunction to keep the Voters from entering their real estate.
The matter was subsequently referred to a referee, who granted a summary judgement to the Lamberts in 2008. The referee determined that the Voters had failed to establish that they’d “acquired a right, either by implication or by prescription, to travel upon the Lamberts’ property.”
Superior Court Justice Michaela Murphy later adopted the referee’s reports and issued an order of judgement in favor of the Lamberts. That order included provisions that would relate to the present controversy, specifically that the Voters were “forever debarred and estopped from having or claiming any easement, right, title or interest adverse to the Lamberts in the Lambert Real Estate.”
The Voters appealed the decision to the Maine State Supreme Court, which reaffirmed Murphy’s order in late 2008.
In 2009, Wendall Voter acquired a 3.7-acre plot of land, which is adjacent to the Lamberts’ property, from Thorndike & Sons, Inc. That company has a deeded right of way to use the Dickey Road. After that land transaction and two, ensuing leases were finalized, members of the Voter family once more traveled the Dickey Road to access. The Lamberts indicated in 2010, through a letter from their attorney, that they believed that the land transaction constituted contempt of Murphy’s 2008 order.
Stokes noted that the Lamberts and Voters “essentially co-existed” until 2013, due to a low level of activity along the Dickey Road. However, the Lamberts eventually determined that a new camp was being constructed on the newly-acquired plot of land. They filed motions for contempt and to enforce the 2008 order in December 2013. The Voters subsequently filed a motion for relief from judgement, effectively seeking clarification as to whether Murphy’s 2008 order applied to access across the Dickey Road through the warranty deed and right of way obtained from Thorndike & Sons, Inc.
A bench trial was held in September, with both parties submitting written closing arguments. Stokes issued his decision on Nov. 10, indicating that the central issue before the court was “whether the Voters’ actions of obtaining a deeded right of way to use the Dickey Road and then traveling on the Dickey Road to enter upon the Lambert Real Estate, violated the clear and specific language of the Order and Judgement ….”
Stokes found the language in Murphy’s 2008 ruling, specifically that the Voters and their heirs were “forever debarred and estopped from having or claiming any easement, right, title or interest adverse to the Lamberts in the Lambert Real Estate,” to be “clear, unambiguous and unequivocal.” Stokes rejected the argument put forward by the Voters’ counsel that the order did not apply to newly-acquired property rights.
Stokes granted the Lamberts’ motion of contempt and motion to enforce. He rejected the Voters’ motion for relief from judgement, noting that it would have been easier to determine whether or not the Voters should be allowed some relief from the prohibitions of the 2008 order prior to the family members “pursu[ing] a strategy of self-help.”
“By pursuing the course of action they did, the Voters have made matters exponentially worse between them and the Lamberts,” Stokes wrote. “It makes little sense at this point to essentially reward the Voters for their non-compliance with the Order … it would inequitable to the Lamberts to relieve the Voters of the consequences of their own non-compliance.”
Stokes ruled that the acquisition of the Thorndike & Sons, Inc. property did not allow the Voters any right to use the Dickey Road and associated woods roads. With the exception of two members of the family that previously indicated they had no interest in the litigation, Stokes ordered the named plaintiffs to pay a fine of $500 per day, commencing 30 days from Nov. 10, unless they revoked and canceled two lease agreements relating to the newly-acquired property. Other lease agreements that did not include the right of way issue could then be executed if the Voters so desired.
Additionally, the Voters were assessed a $500 fine per day for each day that they enter Lambert Real Estate, including the Dickey Road.
They were also assessed a $10,000 compensatory fine, to be paid to the Lamberts “as compensation for the loss of enjoyment and use of the Lambert Real Estate,” as well as another fine equaling the Lamberts’ attorneys’ fees going back to Oct. 9, 2009.
It’s too bad that it had to come to that. Close neighbors for lifetime!!! So unfortunate
If we think of something our legislators need to address, it’s issues like this. Having lived on a right-of-way, I found the state laws to be ambiguous. We had bad neighbor issues and the police were unable to address any of the issues as it was a civil matter. While researching possible courses of action, we discovered that we were not alone and that the courts are constantly dealing with right-of-way issues.
Who’s moderating this site? Ben Hanstein or Roger?
In my opinion, I believe that this is a miscarriage of justice and I agree with Anonymous Fan that something needs to be done about rights of way laws…they really are ambiguous…
Interesting set of circumstances here, but the resolution seems clear.
If the Lamberts own the land, with free and clear title, then they also own the roads within those boundaries. This assumes that the Town has abandoned any rights to the roads long ago, which seems to be true by the facts presented in the article (no public easement over the Dickey Road).
It seems like the failure point lands with one sentence within the article:
“Mrs. Shurtleff replied that she did not need a right of way or the Lamberts’ permission to use the roads,”
This is simply not true. Landowner Protection Rights are clear and should be valued by us all.
I wonder what might have happened if Mrs. Shurtleff would have agreed to sit and work out a reasonable right-of-way agreement that day with Mr. Lambert?? My guess is that all this time, money, litigation and bad feelngs would have been avoided altogether.
Maine Realtor says “I wonder what might have happened if Mrs. Shurtleff would have agreed to sit and work out a reasonable right-of-way agreement that day with Mr. Lambert?? My guess is that all this time, money, litigation and bad feelngs would have been avoided altogether.”
I say “yup.” Being a good neighbor means caring about how your neighbor sees things.
I’m curious about Old Timer’s claim of “miscarriage of justice.” Pretty strong words! Why not give us all an explanation of exactly what that means? And what exactly do you know that the past three judges didn’t in those three lengthy court cases? Are you just an unhappy family member who was at this three-day trial? Or someone who wasn’t there but is a friend of the losing side? After reading this very detailed story of 30 pages of explanation by a highly-respected judge, I don’t think we’re talking about an episode of Judge Judy!
In my opinion after reading the case of “Fayette vs. Manter”, the cases were identical yet the outcomes were entirely different..and in my opinion, not all parties were fairly represented…so yes, I do believe in my opinion, that this was a miscarriage of justice….
From Fayette/Manter
“The parties also agree that when a town discontinues a road and retains a “public easement,” the public has an unfettered right of access over that road but the town has no maintenance responsibility”
The Voters can still access their property, just not by the Dickey Road
In answer to Chuck Davis, yes we can get to the little camp on the Dickey Road via a 4-wheeler & snowmobile trail, but we still have to travel 2 miles by vehicle and walk the remaining mile a more for those who do not own an ATV, and there is no right of way and you can’t get a vehicle across the brook.
If you read Fayette v Manter, there are a few similarities, but many differences to this case. No disparity or “miscarriage of justice” exists here. And to those who say that the law is ambiguous, I respectfully disagree. All the judges involved saw the law the same way. A clean sweep. I’m glad both sides have the opportunity to move on. All that money spent on attorneys and fines would have built quite a road on their own property.