A new conservation easement case from Maine’s highest court is a lesson in statutory interpretation.

ESTATE OF MERRILL P. ROBBINS v. CHEBEAGUE & CUMBERLAND LAND TRUST (Sup. Judicial Ct. Maine Jan. 26, 2017), 2017 WL 370891

A controversy over the development of land encumbered with a conservation easement in Maine sparked an inquiry into who has standing to challenge a conservation easement in the state. In a 3-2 opinion, the court narrowly construed the statute limiting who can enforce a conservation easement (or at least dispute its terms) in the state.

In 1997, a landowner granted a 100-acre conservation easement to a local land trust for preservation in perpetuity of the land in its natural state to protect scenic views and open space values. At some point in the intervening years, the conservation easement was transferred to a successor in interest land trust and the parcel was divided into three. The 100 acres are now held by the town, a developer, and a trust that is the successor to the original landowner. The opinion does not detail the exact spatial arrangement or acreage, but notes that the Trust has the smallest acreage. (I could not tell if the Trust land is physically adjacent to the Town property.) The Town now seeks to develop its portion of the land into a public beach, which will include relocating a bath house, repairing some roads, and building a parking lot. The Land Trust has determined that such activities are in line with the purposes of the conservation easement and approved of the Town’s proposal. The Trust is not happy though and argues that these changes are violations of the conservation easement.

For the both the majority opinion and the dissent, this case turns on the interpretation of Maine’s conservation easement enabling act. Section 478(1) of Maine’s Revised Statutes details who has the ability to bring an action affecting a conservation easement. The statute presents four categories of possible plaintiffs (or intervenors) for “an action affecting a conservation easement.” They are “An owner of an interest in real property burdened by the easement,” the holder of the conservation easement, an entity or person with a third party right of enforcement, or the Attorney General under certain conditions. The only category at issue in this case is (A): the owner of an interest in real property burdened by the easement.