A Maine court has sided with a group of Wells neighbors in a lawsuit over the construction of a fence and a driveway that they say have impeded their access to the Webhannet River.
In an April 21 decision, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court overturned an earlier decision by the York County Superior Court and remanded the case back to the lower court.
In accordance with the opinion issued by Justice Andrew Mead, the case will go back to the Superior Court for further proceedings, including to hear the neighbors’ request for the fence to be taken down.
Gene Libby, a lawyer for the neighbors who brought the lawsuit, said Tuesday that his clients were pleased with the outcome, though they felt “it should have been the decision the Superior Court issued over a year ago.”
The lawyers for the defendants declined to comment.
The lawsuit, filed in October 2023, stemmed from a dispute between the group of neighbors and a pair of homeowners over the latter’s installation of the fence and driveway within an easement. The neighbors argued that the addition of the fence and the vehicles in the driveway in the path of the easement were an unreasonable interference with their access to the river.
The lower court ruled in November 2024 that the fence did not interfere with riverfront access, but that the parked cars did.
But the neighbors appealed, arguing that the fence obstructs the path and makes it difficult for them to carry kayaks, paddleboards and other such equipment to the water.
The easement is about 10 feet wide, according to court documents, and the fence divides it down the middle, leaving 5 feet on each side.
In his opinion, Mead said the lower court erred in previously ruling that the fence did not interfere, citing precedent that says easement holders are entitled to the entire width, not limited to “what is necessary or convenient.”
The fence “directly and unreasonably” burdens the easement by splitting it, Mead wrote.
No future proceedings had been scheduled as of Tuesday, according to a clerk at the York County Superior Court.
Editor’s note: This story was updated on April 29 to correct an image showing the fence and driveway in dispute.
We invite you to add your comments. We encourage a thoughtful exchange of ideas and information on this website. By joining the conversation, you are agreeing to our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is found on our FAQs. You can update your screen name on the member's center.
Comments are managed by our staff during regular business hours Monday through Friday as well as limited hours on Saturday and Sunday. Comments held for moderation outside of those hours may take longer to approve.
Join the Conversation
Please sign into your Press Herald account to participate in conversations below. If you do not have an account, you can subscribe here. Questions? Please see our FAQs.