Yetman v. Stoneridge Farms
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SLTPEPJOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. RE-05-081 STATE OF MAINE YOPX, ss. KEVIN W. YETMAN, et al., Plaintiffs ORDER STONENDGE FARMS, INC., et al., Defendants Before the Court Before tile is defendan$ Stoneridge Farms, Inc. and Laura ( ~ ~ ~ f motiondto ~ ~ t plaintiffs Kevin and Donna Yetman and Steve ~ ~ dismiss ~ u ) for declaratory and illjunctive and Lori pelletierts ("plaintiffsu) Following review, the Motion is Denied. Background On June 30, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a verified complaint requesting the court to declare that Plaintiffs have an easement over a disc~ntinuedroad in the town of .4rundel, known as "Curtis Road," and ciljoining Dcfendants from obstructing their use of this road. Plaintiffs attached eight ~xhibitsto their complai~t,lnbclcd .2H and incorporated by reference into the coml~laiilt.Exhibit A is a cop^^ of the Yehansl deed to property abutting Curtis Road; Exhihi t R j s a copy of the PeIletiers' deed to property abutting Curtis Road; Exhibit C is a copy of Stoneridge Farms, I ~ C . ' ~ to some deed property in the same vicinity as Plaintiffs' property; Exlibit D is a copy of Stoneridge Farms, Inc.'s deed to some other proprr!y in hiis same vicility; ExhiL7ikE is 2 of t]?e Town of Arundel Annt~al Town Meetlng Warrant and Minutes of March 1, 1954, stating in relevant part, "Voted to close the Curtis Road ... leading from Downing Road to former Taylor Place now owned by Arthur Jones"; Exhibit F 1s a copy of the Town of Arundel Special Town Meeting Cliarrant and Minutes of July 18, 1978, stating in relevant part, "voted to close the road from h4earle Stones to the Old Taylor Farm (so called)"; Exhibit G IS a copy o a Notice to PlainFLffs, dated June 4, 2C05 fi-om Stoneridge k Investors Group, whose members appear to be Sol Fedder, Clifton E. Temm, 11, D.V.M. and Fred Stone, and stating that, as of July 1, 2005, Plaintiffs would be prohibited from accessing their properties via "Stoneridge Farm property" and stating that "Fred and Laura Stone are the 'owners' of what was called the 'Curtis Road,' that crosses Stoneridge Farms"; Exhibit H is a copy of an easement deed from Frederick and Laura Stone to Plaintiffs granting Plaintiffs a right of way over Curtis Road "only to the extent each Grantee has, and continues to have, an independent right to pass over this particular portion of the existing Curtis Road." Plaintiffs claim an easement over the portion of C ~ ~ r t i s that provides access Road to their properbes. One ground for the claimed eascrnent is the easement deed attached to their complaint at Exhibit H. Plaintiffs claim, as well, however, that the portion of the road providing access to their properties was discontinued by the Town of Arundel as a public road in 1978, 2nd that, P L I ~ C ' L ] ~to: ~ ~ 23 hl.Ii.S.A. 5 3026, rnactcc? by thc -\v/Izlnc Legislature in 1976, the public has an easement ox.7er this portion of the road because the town did not explicitly revoke the public easement in its 1978 discontinuance. On July 1, 2005, the court grantcd rlaintifts a temporary rcstraining order ("TRO"), enjoilung Defendants from obstructing Plaintiffs and their invitees from accessing Curtis Road, and orderlng 1)ctendants to remove any cxlstlng obstacles on Curtis Road. Defendants' motion to dissolve the TRO was denied on July 13, 2005, and their appeal of this order to the Law Court was dismissed on September 1, 2005. Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint on two grounds, (1)under L4.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6),the complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted and (2) under M.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(7),Plaintiffs have failed to join Sol Fedder and Clifton E. Temm, 11, D.V.M., who are indispensable parties to this action. Discussion I. Failure to State a Claim for which Relief May Be Granted When a court decides a motion to dismiss made pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the material allegations of the complaint must be taken as admitted. Moody v. State Liquor t Lottery Comnz'n, 2004 ME 20, ΒΆ 7; 843 A.2d 43, 47. A dismissal should only 3 occur when it appears beyond doubt that a plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set of facts that he might prove in support of his claim. Id. An examination of Plaintiffs' claim, including the exhibits incorporated therein by reference, yields the conclusion that they have stated a claim for which relief may be granted. The documents submitted by Plaintiffs do not conclusively establish that Curtis Road was completely discontinued in 1954, as Defendants contend. Rather, they seem to show that some portion of the road w a s discontinued in 1954, and that yet ,nother portion of the road :var di~ctntl!l.~~3d 1 7 3 FJething in the Plzintiffsl in 9 ! . complaint compels the conclusion that the easement claimed by Plaintiffs over some portion of Curtis Road is not the portion that may have been discontinued in 1978, and Ej 3026. lvloreover, it is possible, depending thus subject to the provisions of 23 b1.R.S.A. on the facts developed as to the Town's 1978 vote, that the public Inay have retained an easement over the portion of Curtis Koad discontinued at that bme. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have stated a claim for wlich relief may be granted, and Defendants' motion to dismiss on this ground is denied. 11. Failure to Join Indispensable Parties In addition to their claim that Plaintiffs' claim should be dismissed for failure to join Sol Fedder and Clifton E. Temm, 11, D.V.M., Defendants claim that Fred and Laura Stone are not proper defendai-its in this action because Stoneridge Farms, Inc. is the owner of the property in question, and not them. The court agrees with Plaintiffs, however, that Fred and Laura Stone are proper parties to this action because Plaintiffs' complaint alleges at 9 11, "Defendant Stoneridge and/or Defendant Stone has partially blocked the Curtis Road right-of-way with farm equipment and has undertaken to dump manure in the road to make it as impassable as possible." Part of the relief prayed for against Defendants is against the Stones in their personal capacity, to enjoin them from engaging in such practices. Accordingly, they are properly named as defendants in this action. Turning to Defendants' argument that Sol Fedder and Clifton E. Temm, 11, D.V.M. must be joined in this action: Plaintiffs are seelung a determination of their property rights that will affect all owners of the right of way. Accordingly, all owners of the property at issue must be joined in the action. It appears to the Court that, if Sol Fedder and C!ifton E. Temm, 11, D.?7.PV/l., net prcvioucly been jcined by Plintiffs in this action, it is perhaps because Plaintiffs had no official notice of their o~vnership interest in the subject property. In their reply, Defendants attach copies of two deeds, both dated June 9, 2005, convcying "a twenty percent interest of that portion of t l ~ c property known and described as the discontlntled CURTIS ROAD, which exists on, and is included in the Stoneridge Farm Property" each to Sol Fedder ("Exhibit 1") and Clifton E. Temm, 11, D.V.M., ("Exhbit 2.") These Exhibits contain no evidence that the grants of property described Llier.e~~i \vcJl.e recorcied III the York County ICeglstry ol Dccds, nor d o Zlef'enclalll-s claim that ll~ey~vel-e. If' tl~eseinkrests arc not properly recorded, then I'laint-i (fs have no notice of their o\w~iership interest and, TI, correspondingly, no obligation to join S(:l I;eclder a n d Clifton G. 're~nm, D.V.M. in the action. Should it become appal-ent that ! hesc interests are y r n ] ~ f 1 \recorded, Plaintiffs . 1 A tvill have sixty days h i r i the date nt [Iiis o i - d ~ r or friim tlie date o recoi.clation, , f tvhichever occurs later, t n join Sol Feddi:i- c i i i i i Cli tL(ii7 l.l'er-.lin~, D.V.iC1. as defendants j I;, i n this action. Defendants' mntio1.1 to dismiss is 12l?l'JI111?. Thc clcrk may incorporate [his orclcr in the docket by reference. Dated: Thomas Danylik, E s q . - PLS Michael J. O'Toole, Esq. - PLS Stoneridge F a r ~ n s , Pnc.; TJaura Stone and Frederick Stone - DEFS (pro s e ) ( ~usn/cr, Superior Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
