O'Donovan v. McIntosh
Maine Supreme Judicial Court
728 A.2d 681 (1999)
- Written by John Yi, JD
Facts
In 1987, McIntosh purchased real property adjacent to land owned by Fish and an option on the Fish property. He then sold that option and optioned his own property to a developer that wanted to subdivide and build on the Fish property. However, the developer did not proceed with the development and let both options expire. Thus in 1989 McIntosh sold his property to Huggins (defendant) but reserved a right-of-way easement to allow access to the Fish property. The deed stated that the easement was “for the benefit of the Grantor and his heirs and assigns,” limited to only those that would build or occupy the Fish property. The deed also incorporated a side agreement that would “be binding on subsequent owners” of the easement and would prevent Huggins from actively opposing any application for development of the Fish property. In 1995, O’Donovan (plaintiff) purchased the Fish property and McIntosh’s easement. His company, Black Bear Development, applied for approval to subdivide the Fish land. The town suspended the application because of uncertainty regarding the transferability of the easement. O’Donovan then sought a declaratory judgment allowing him to buy and sell the easement. The trial court granted Huggins summary judgment and held that the easement was not assignable. O’Donovan appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dana, J.)
Dissent (Wathen, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.