Testa's, Inc. v. Jack Coopersmith

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a judgment holding that a 1978 agreement created an enforceable appurtenant easement over Testa’s property for access to the Coopersmiths’ buildings. The court concluded that the agreement was binding despite one party’s failure to sign and that its language granted an easement rather than a revocable license. Because it affirmed the express-easement ruling, the court did not reach the alternative prescriptive-easement arguments.

Holdings

1. The agreement was valid and enforceable. Riccardo's signature was unnecessary to bind the Testas and the Sanborns regarding access benefiting the Coopersmith building, and the trial court did not clearly err in finding that Riccardo consented to the agreement's terms.
2. The 1978 agreement unambiguously granted an appurtenant easement over Testa's parking lot for the benefit of the Coopersmith and Tourmaline buildings, not merely a license.
3. The court did not decide the prescriptive-easement issue because its holding that the 1978 agreement was enforceable and created an appurtenant easement resolved the appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the 1978 agreement was enforceable even though Catherine Riccardo, one of the five identified parties, did not sign it.
2. Whether the 1978 agreement created an appurtenant easement rather than merely a revocable license.
3. Whether the agreement's termination provision for abuse of access transformed the granted interest into a license or otherwise rendered the agreement ambiguous.
4. Whether the Coopersmiths had a prescriptive easement over Testa's property.

Disposition

affirmed