Opinion
Civil Action CV-21-132
03-29-2023
THOMAS PERRY and DIANE PERRY, Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants, v. CHARLENE YOUNG, Defendant/ Counterclaim Plaintiff
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR VIEW
Before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment issued January 5, 2023 and Plaintiffs' Motion for a View, For the following reasons, the Court grants the Motion for Reconsideration in part and denies the Motion for a View.
Legal Standard
"A motion for reconsideration of an order 'shall not be filed unless required to bring to the court's attention an error, omission or new material that could not previously have been presented,"' U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Manning, 2020 ME 42, ¶ 34, 228 A.3d 726 (quoting M.R. Civ. P. 7(b)(5)). A motion for reconsideration of the judgment is treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgment. M.R. Civ. P, 59(e). A motion to alter or amend the judgment will not be granted "unless it is reasonably clear that prejudicial error has been committed or that substantial justice has not been done." Cates v. Farrington, 423 A.2d 539, 541 (Me. 1980).
Discussion
The Motion for Reconsideration argues that the Court should have concluded that the express easement included passage onto the walkway from the driveway and must include passage from the driveway to the location of the septic tank between the Perry house and garage for purposes of septic maintenance.
The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs' first argument and so declines to amend the Order to reflect the walkway as paid of the express easement. The Court is also not persuaded that the express easement along the existing road has a latent ambiguity or must include septic access. However, the Court will amend its Order to reflect that its findings and conclusions were based on the express easement over the existing road only. The Court's Order did not intend to foreclose any additional arguments under Plaintiffs' Count I regarding easement rights stemming from outside of the express easement provision that the Court considered on summary judgment.
At this time, the Court does not believe a view is necessary. The Motion for a View is denied without prejudice.
The entry is
Plaintiffs' Motion for a View is DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED IN PART. The entry of judgment in the Court's Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment issued January 5, 2023 is hereby AMENDED such that where it originally read.
Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART as follows.
Summary Judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendant on Plaintiffs' Count I.
Summary Judgment is DENIED on Plaintiffs' Count II and Defendant's Count I.it shall now read:
Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART as follows.
Summary Judgment is GRANTED to Defendant on Plaintiffs' Count I to the extent the easement fights Count I asserts are based on the express easement in the deeds reserving "to David A. Foss et al, their heirs and assigns, a right of way on the said existing road, to the buildings on Lot No. 11 where it passes through Lot No. 12 on said Plan" and granting "a right of way on the existing road to the then buildings where it passes through the adjoining lot numbered 12." Summary Judgment is DENIED on Plaintiffs' Count II and Defendant's Count I.
The clerk is directed to incorporate this Order on the docket by reference. M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).