Supreme Court to Allow Arguments Online

“Live audio streaming of Supreme Judicial Court arguments begins on Wednesday. Chief Justice Leigh Saufley announced the new service during her State of the Judiciary speech to the Legislature in February.

The court’s government and media counsel, Mary Ann Lynch, calls streaming a great step forward in making the work of the Supreme Judicial Court accessible “to all Maine people, no matter where they live.” Computers with Internet access are available in every public library in Maine.” via Bangor Daily News .

Watch online here: http://www.courts.state.me.us/maine_courts/supreme/stream.shtml

Court Approves LURC Rezoning for Plum Creek

The Supreme Court has removed one more hurdle for the developers of the Plum reek project around Moosehead Lake.  While the overall zoning has been changed, each individual project still needs to go through its own approval process.

The state supreme court supported the Land Use Regulation Commission’s rezoning of nearly 400,000 acres in the Moosehead region. The concept plan allows Plum Creek to create up to 975 house lots and two large resorts on roughly 16,000 of those acres over the next 30 years.

Plum Creek must receive permits for each subdivision or resort, all but guaranteeing the regulatory skirmishes with opponents are far from complete. But in the immediate future, the court’s ruling will trigger the completion of a conservation deal guaranteeing public access to 363,000 acres of timberland that will remain working forests. …

A Superior Court justice … halted the plan after determining LURC violated its own rules by not holding another public hearing before adopting a substantially rewritten rezoning application. He remanded the case back to LURC for additional hearings.

The Supreme Court disagreed Thursday. “We conclude that LURC did not violate its procedural rules and did not otherwise err by approving the rezoning petition and concept plan,” the court wrote.

via Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine.

Website for Mortgage Settlement

For more information on the settlement between the banks and states attorneys general is here:

http://nationalmortgagesettlement.com/

The settlement will provide as much as $25 billion in relief to distressed borrowers and direct payments to states and the federal government. It’s the largest multistate settlement since the Tobacco Settlement in 1998.

The agreement settles state and federal investigations finding that the country’s five largest loan servicers routinely signed foreclosure related documents outside the presence of a notary public and without really knowing whether the facts they contained were correct.  Both of these practices violate the law.  The settlement provides benefits to borrowers whose loans are owned by the settling banks as well as to many of the borrowers whose loans they service.

Bank of America to Reduce Principals

As part of the foreclosure settlement, Bank of America will be offering principal reductions on mortgages originated by Countrywide.  NY Times:

The cuts for homeowners who owe more than their homes are worth could total more than $100,000 each under the deal with the government, according to Dan Frahm, a spokesman for Bank of America. Bank of America hopes it will be able to reduce what it owes in penalties under the settlement by up to $850 million.

Case Note: Scope of Implied Quasi-Easement

The Maine Supreme Court recently issued an opinion on a case concerning the scope of an implied quasi-easement.  The case concerned the rights of a landowner to expand the use of a right-of-way that they use to cross railroad tracks.

Because there was no written easement in the deeds, the landowner first had to show a history of use to prove there was a right-of-way.  While the court found that there was a history of transporting farm equipment and supplies, the court limited the right-of-way easement to just that usage.  The landowner had wanted to extend power lines across the railroad as part of a development plan, but the court ruled that the landowner could not expand the right-of-way beyond its use as a “farm crossing.”

The case is Connolly v. Central Maine Railroad Co. If you have questions about your easement rights, feel free to contact me.

Supreme Court Rules on Intertidal Rights

The tussle in Maine over beach access between oceanfront property owners and members of the public goes back centuries. Beachfront owners, citing a colonial-era law adopted when Maine was part of Massachusetts, claim they own the shore all the way to the low-tide mark–and that the public can only use private tidelands if it’s for “fishing, fowling and navigation.” But the Maine Supreme Judicial Court last week shifted the landscape. It ruled 6-0 in favor of an Eastport scuba diver who wanted to access his neighbor’s property at low tide.

Listen on MPBN.

Pine Tree Gets Grant to Help Veterans

A $24,000 grant from the Maine Community Foundation will help the organization develop material about Maine-specific laws. State-specific laws come into play in areas like divorce and guardianship and there are particular state benefits such as admission to the Maine Veterans’ Homes.”It is really confusing and many people don’t know they’re protected by law because of their status with the military,” said Helen Meyer, a development associate with the organization.Pine Tree Legal sees the effort as a way to improve veterans’ access to legal protections unique to them. The organization has seen a growing need for legal assistance among families with a military connection.

via The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram.

Beach Access Problems

The Press Herald has an article about going disputes over access to beaches thoughout the State. The problem is not just on the coastal ocean beaches, but on the lakes and rivers throughout the State. The issues that many landowners face are vague or even inconsistent deeds in their chain of title, as well as a history of case law that often provides vastly different results based on seemingly minor factual differences.

In Maine and Massachusetts, however, oceanfront owners generally own the shore all the way to the low-tide mark, including the beach, rocks and seaweed.

The public does have some limited rights to use private lands between the tides, but only for “fishing, fowling and navigation,” according to the Colonial-era ordinance.

The Moody Beach case, a landmark 4-3 decision by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in 1989, held that the public does not have recreation rights on private tidelands.

Child Labor Laws Relaxed

Portland Press Herald:

Gov. Paul LePage has signed into law a bill to ease Maine’s child labor restrictions so teenagers can work longer hours.  The bill signed today by the governor will allow students to work as many as 24 hours rather than the 20 per week under current law.  It also increases from four to six the number of hours students can work on school days.  Students can work as late as 10:15 p.m. on nights before school. Supporters said the new law helps businesses looking for youthful help, and also helps teenagers who need the money.

More details on Bangor Daily News

Article on Hunting Rights

[Below is a Q&A article about the rights of a person selling their land, but retaining the right to hunt on that land, as posted on Village Soup]

Q. I am about to buy a tract of undeveloped woodland in western Maine, but the seller hs just told me he wants me to include wording in the contract allowing him to hunt and camp on the property for the rest of his life. He’s an old codger, so I don’t imagine “the rest of his life” will be that long, frankly. But I have never heard of this kind of thing, and wonder if I could be getting myself into some kind of situation, either with him, or other hunters, as I intend to post it No Hunting and No Trespassing as far as the general public is concerned. Any advice?

You would be able to grant the seller the right to hunt and camp on the land for the rest of his life.  There are a couple ways that this can be done.  One would be through an easement deed where you grant the seller the right to hunt and fish on the land for as long as he lives.  This would be an easement “in gross” to the seller, meaning the easement rights (in this case to fish and hunt) are reserved to him only, and they do not get passed on to anyone else.  You would need to be sure the easement was carefully drafted to not inadvertently give up too many rights to your newly purchased land.

Another way to do this would be to grant the seller a license to access the land for hunting and fishing.  This is similar to the easement, but with the important difference being that a license can be revoked by you, unlike an easement.  If you wanted to have certain restrictions on the access to the property, the license may provide an easier way to enforce those restrictions.  A license is more like a lift ticket at a ski resort that allows someone to be on the property for a certain purpose.  If the seller were to violate the agreement, you would be able to terminate the license, and anytime he accessed your land he would be trespassing.

You would still be able to post your land to notify others that you do not allow access to the general public.  The seller, through an easement or license, would be legally permitted to go onto the land and to hunt.  If you wanted certain restrictions, perhaps prohibiting hunting on certain days, enforcement could be challenging.  Like most property rights, a dispute would be a civil matter for the courts.  If the seller were to go beyond the scope of the rights you granted, and refused to stop exceeding their granted rights, you would need to seek an injunction from the court.   While you may have an easier time in court with a clearly revoked license, a court proceeding to restrict the seller will still take time and money.

With either the license or the easement, it will be important to make sure that the rights you are granting are clearly defined.  Most disputes over easement rights are the result of vague language that the two sides argue have different meanings.  It is best to consult a lawyer in deciding how best to accomplish the wishes of both parties, and to ensure that the agreement is legally enforceable.