fraudulent easement/ municipal immunity dilemma

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Maine

I have an easement/ municipal immunity dilemma. A piece of property I recently bought abuts a town piece of property. On my side (burdening my property) is a rectangular permanent easement owned by the town that basically expands their lot size. The easement deed (a quitclaim) gives them express rights for access, excavation, and tree removal. Thay have cleared the site of trees and filled it in with dirt.
Now the fun part - the easement wasn't granted to the town by the previous owner of my property, it was granted to them by my neighbor. I explained the matter to the town lawyer within the limitation period to prevent any adverse posession claim and he agreed, my neighbor and the town screwed up and the town won't use the property anymore. I asked the town to restore the property, ie remove the fill, reloam, replant trees and they refuse citing the cost (approx. $3000). Holding my neighbor (the grantor) accountable is not an option for reasons I don't want to clutter this issue with.
What can I do to hold the town accountable?

Thanks.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

From your description, the Town simply does not hold an easement on your property. Your neighbor would not seem to be liable to you, you must go after the Town for relief.
I cannot give you the law for Maine, you will have to consult a lawyer in that state, but I would be surprised if municipal immunity applied for the damage they caused.

Thanks for replying.

My understanding of the situation reduces to: there was never any title conveyance, the town simply trespassed and damaged my property (while it was owned by the previous owner), trespass and relief damages are tort law to which towns are immune, so no relief. If anybody can explain how relief can be sought outside of tort PLEASE let me know - I think the town is liable.

It is still worth talking to a atty about for one reason and one only , what ever written documents they had from the neighbor, ( and yes it should have been in writting for the town to properly protect itself ) the town should have had someone verify verify ownership of the land they were going to use and the owner information prior to recording ( the someone being perhaps the towns attorney) , SO its still worth speaking to a atty about only because the town it appears took no steps to reasonably protect selfs by following simple steps. ( Even in a very small town simple steps to protect itself would have led to them discovering the error before damaging your property)

I agree with Farmer, I think you should talk to a lawyer. Municipal immunity can be a complicated subject, and may depend on established law (caselaw) rather than written law. I know from experience (NH) that it is not just black and white.

See my logic is this , If out of absolute necessity city /county /govt had to do something to a property that was of public benefit like say the streets to a school are laid out in such a way that walking students or bus traffic had to use a very dangerous entry onto a major street to access residential areas and public officials saw another route but that meant either getting a easement in writting from other adjacent land owners to create a walkway/ road to a safer point I can see them doing it or even using eminent domain to buy a strip of land for the purpose but they still would have everything set up in a way that they are able to properly document every thing including records /title reviews set up by legal representation to make sure every thing is done cleanly. So to me its logical to speak to a atty about the towns lack of diligence / following reasonable steps to make sure they had no legal problems later on. A reasonable outcome would be for them to pay your legal bills and pay to have new trees and or shrubbery planted and any sod needed to restore your property close to its previous condition, wich is something they just might go for since it could limit the amount of egg on there public image due to the towns own poor handling of the whole thing.

You might check
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/14/title14ch741.pdf
and read the exceptions to immunity for "property damage" due to "negligent acts" by the use of "machinery or equipment".

Not having read the entire statute, there may be a 180 day time limit to file a claim.

I would consider filing a claim for damages, and it's possible the Town's insurance might settle out of court to avoid the expense of defending. It depends on how much you are looking for and what it might cost for them to defend against you.

Thanks for the replys.

I found the same statute about "major equipment", but after reading some superior court cases that involved that statute, apparently the court views it as part of a "vehicle and vehicle related" section, so there's no way to apply it here. I will talk to a lawyer, but I'll add some more details in the meantime that would have made the situation more confusing if I tried to explain them right off the bat. My neighbor did actually grant ~5% of his land and 95% of mine, so a sliver of the easement was probably validly conveyed. There is also a clause (an RC? or ES?) in the easement deed where the town says it will return the land to the condition before any excavation or tree cutting in return for the grantor not holding them responsible for any damages - perfect! Except they didn't make that promise to the previous owner of my property. I did read somewhere that as long as an owner holds SOME ownership in the property (5% of the easement is valid) convenants and servitudes in deeds are enforecable. There maybe some hope that way because I have just recently acquired title to my neighbor's property as well (ie I own the property of the grantor who conveyed the easement to the town and I also own the property of the owner who was screwed). If the easement deed was a warranty deed i could put 'the conveyance without the land' together with 'the land' and the town would have fulfill the clause about returning the land's condition to pre-excavation, but the deed is a quitclaim...

but after reading some superior court cases that involved that statute, apparently the court views it as part of a "vehicle and vehicle related" section, so there's no way to apply it here.

Click to expand...

I'm assuming you meant Supreme Court, as Superior Court decisions are not citable or hold precedental value. Without doing any research, I'd say you are probably correct in your evaluation of the interpretation of the law. I'd thought of that also, but thought the threat of a suit, regardless of the potential outcome, might prompt the Town to settle. There are probably many who would not agree with that approach.

I found that immunity must usually be based on a discretionary decision, and that doesn't seem to fit your situation. It seems unreasonable that the Town could damage your property and not be liable, but I've experienced stranger things. Perhaps the damage can be claimed as an unconstitutional taking, as it reduced the value of your property as a result of govermental action. As I said, this is a complicated issue, which in my state is contained more in caselaw than written law. The fact is that your former neighbor had no legal right to grant an easement on your property, and the Town should have known that, after all; they hold the tax records. They were negligent in their actions, period.

The statute calls for notification to the Town in a specified manner before making a court case. Have you done that?

The fact that you now own the whole property may give you some leverage, but really shouldn't affect the damage claim to your original property.

A quit claim makes no representation of ownership. There may be no fraud here. The town may have come to the neighbor and said: hey we need an easement, and he says, I don't own that piece but I'm not going to stand in your way and signed the qc.

I should mention since you brought up tax records, the town who bought the easement is actually a neighboring town who needed the antenna located in my town - my town and "the town" are not the same. But I don't think that changes anything...

And I didn't file any claim w/ the town - I wanted to talk to a lawyer first.

A quitclaim makes no claim of ownership is absolutely right. However there is also a grantee who took 100% of what was granted and they did it only on the promise of a quitclaim (ie no warranties of title). In that light, they still made an agreement with the grantor on the quitclaim deed, which is registered and made public record, to restore the entire area of the property in exchange for the grant (whatever that may be) when the limited use is over. And he did grant some of the property legitimately. That, I guess, is my arguement to the town so far...any other suggestions?