An indication on Moody Seaside tells guests that the world north of the Wells-Ogunquit line is non-public. A bunch challenged a regulation that provides possession of the intertidal zone to property homeowners as a substitute of the state, however a choose has dominated largely towards them. Ben McCanna/Workers Photographer
A Cumberland County Superior Court docket justice has affirmed that the land between the excessive and low tide marks on Maine seashores belongs to personal property homeowners, not the state, however he didn’t rule on whether or not the general public might use that land for actions like operating.
The ruling dealt a blow to the practically two dozen plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit to overturn the non-public possession of the intertidal zone. Superior Court docket Justice John O’Neil Jr. dismissed practically of all claims and half of the defendants in an order this week. However O’Neil additionally prompt {that a} future order might increase the allowed makes use of on that public land, and your complete case nonetheless might be sure for the state’s high courtroom.
“This lawsuit is the newest battle within the warfare over the intertidal lands off Maine’s coast,” O’Neil wrote.
Most coastal states personal the land between the high and low tide marks on their seashores. Greater than 30 years in the past, when the Maine Supreme Judicial Court docket dominated that non-public homeowners personal all the way in which to the low-tide line, it additionally mentioned the general public has restricted rights to make use of the intertidal zone for “fishing, fowling and navigation.” That language dates again to an ordinance from the 1640s, and its which means has lengthy been disputed.
The plaintiffs have requested the courtroom to increase that definition, and that a part of the lawsuit remains to be alive.
Most of the 23 plaintiffs have a enterprise curiosity within the intertidal zone as seaweed harvesters and processors, clammers, wormers and oyster farmers. One is a marine biologist; one other is a professor emeritus on the College of Maine College of Regulation and a longtime voice within the authorized debate over seaside possession. Others personal property close to Moody Seaside in Wells – the identical seaside that was the main focus of the Nineteen Eighties rulings from the Supreme Judicial Court docket. They filed their criticism in Cumberland County Superior Court docket in April 2021.
Commercial
Legal professional Ben Ford, who represents the plaintiffs, issued an announcement Wednesday that didn’t tackle the sweeping dismissal. He additionally didn’t reply follow-up questions by way of electronic mail about what attraction choices can be found to his shoppers and the way this ruling will influence their final objective of public seaside possession.
WEIGHING NEXT STEPS
“Immediately’s choice proves what each Mainer who depends on our shoreline is aware of to be true – Maine’s intertidal downside is way from settled,” Ford wrote in an electronic mail. “This choice provides us a number of choices on subsequent steps and we’re weighing these choices fastidiously. We thank the courtroom for its diligence in addressing these points and are desirous to proceed towards reclaiming the coast of Maine for all Mainers.”
Attorneys who characterize many of the defendants mentioned they have been happy with the choice. 5 of 10 defendants will probably be solely free of the lawsuit. In 2019, the Supreme Judicial Court docket discovered that rockweed is on non-public property and may now not be harvested with out permission from landowners. On this case, O’Neil discovered that these 5 individuals have been being sued solely as a result of they both known as the Maine Marine Patrol on rockweed harvesters within the intertidal zones close to their property or advocated for rockweed conservation.
“If the plaintiffs’ choice to call the Pages, Li and Newby had nothing to do with their stories to Maine Marine Patrol, then it’s curious why each single shorefront property proprietor who claims title to adjoining intertidal land isn’t named on this go well with,” O’Neil wrote.
O’Neil dismissed the claims towards that group of defendants as a violation of Maine’s Anti-SLAPP statute, which is supposed to discourage such lawsuits. (SLAPP stands for “Strategic Lawsuits In opposition to Public Participation.”)
Commercial
“It’s an excellent final result and the result they have been asking for,” lawyer Gordon Smith, who represents these 5 individuals, mentioned Wednesday. “They don’t need to be in litigation. They have been simply exercising their rights as they understood them.”
A type of defendants was Robin Hadlock Seeley, a marine scientist and one of many founders of the Maine Rockweed Coalition, a nonprofit that promotes conservation.
“It bolstered the rights of landowners, together with coastal land trusts, to guard very important marine panorama and stop indiscriminate habitat destruction,” she mentioned of the order on Wednesday.
ARGUMENTS NEGATED BY PREVIOUS OPINIONS
The choose additionally dismissed three claims that put forth totally different arguments about why the state is the true proprietor of the intertidal zone. O’Neil mentioned the Supreme Judicial Court docket had negated these arguments in earlier opinions, and the plaintiffs couldn’t make their case by difficult land conveyances from the seventeenth century.
“Primarily based on the info plead on this criticism, even considered in probably the most favorable gentle attainable, this motion to quiet title to the intertidal lands on the State of Maine has been introduced 120 years too late,” O’Neil wrote.
Commercial
Legal professional David Silk, who represents two LLCs that personal beachfront property in Wells, mentioned the query of possession is “well-settled.”
“We’re happy to see the courtroom agreed that the regulation in Maine is well-settled concerning possession of Maine’s intertidal land,” Silk wrote in an electronic mail.
He didn’t tackle the remaining declare towards his shoppers about public use of the intertidal zone close to their properties. The criticism says entry to the intertidal zone on Moody Seaside has been restricted by signage or verbal instruction to depart or steer clear of that stretch of sand. O’Neil wrote that it’s not clear whether or not actions equivalent to strolling, operating or doing analysis are allowed within the intertidal zone, however it’s attainable that they’re. Settling that query might be one subsequent step within the litigation.
An lawyer who represented one other LLC couldn’t be reached Wednesday afternoon. Two defendants aren’t represented by any lawyer.
Maine has 3,500 miles of tidal shoreline – in line with state officers, the fourth longest in america. Most of it’s rock, and sand seashores are uncommon. The justices who heard the Moody Seaside case within the Nineteen Eighties are now not on the Supreme Judicial Court docket. However their successors have dominated a number of occasions about seaside entry and possession within the many years since. These instances have typically centered on the which means of “fishing, fowling and navigation” in a contemporary context.
Commercial
« Earlier
Subsequent »
Associated Tales
