## Facts

- Owners of a waterfront dominant estate held an express right-of-way over an adjacent servient estate to reach a town road and the seashore.
- The right-of-way had existed in the same location since an 1896 deed and had been used for decades in that location.
- The dominant owners alleged the servient owner obstructed the easement and interfered with access to a natural spring on the servient land.
- Water runoff was eroding the gravel surface of the way; the dominant owners sought court approval to pave part of the way to address the washout.
- The servient owner counterclaimed that the dominant owners unlawfully widened the way and sought damages.
- The servient owner also sought an injunction requiring the dominant owners to stop using the existing way and instead use a proposed relocated route, arguing the existing route passed dangerously close to her home.

## Issues

1. Whether, absent express grant or statutory authority, a servient estate owner may relocate a fixed right-of-way easement without the dominant estate owner’s consent.
2. Whether the dominant estate owner may unilaterally pave or otherwise substantially alter the surface of the easement when the servient owner objects and the change may increase the burden on the servient estate.
3. What relief is appropriate regarding interference with the dominant owners’ ancillary access rights (including spring access) connected to the parties’ property relationship.

## Decision

- The court held the servient owner could not relocate the right-of-way without mutual consent of both dominant and servient owners, absent deed language or statutory authorization.
- The court treated the easement’s established location as part of the dominant owner’s property interest and rejected relocation based solely on the servient owner’s asserted safety and convenience concerns.
- The court agreed that the dominant owners lacked authority to pave the way over the servient owner’s objection where paving would materially increase the burden on the servient estate beyond what the easement contemplated.
- The court left in place relief clarifying the easement’s scope and addressing the spring-access dispute as determined by the trial court.

## Legal Principles

- A right-of-way easement is a property interest of the dominant estate; its location may not be changed unilaterally by the servient owner unless the creating instrument or a statute grants that power.
- Longstanding use in a particular location reinforces that the easement’s route is fixed absent mutual agreement or express reservation.
- The servient owner may seek to prevent unreasonable overuse or overburdening, but that differs from a claimed power to redefine the easement’s location.
- The dominant owner may make reasonable repairs and maintenance necessary for use of the easement, but may not unilaterally make substantial improvements that materially increase the burden on the servient estate.

## Conclusion

The court established that a servient landowner may not relocate an established right-of-way easement without the dominant owner’s consent unless the grant or a statute authorizes relocation, and it limited the dominant owner’s ability to pave the way where doing so would materially increase the servient estate’s burden.


Davis v. Bruk, 411 A.2d 660 (Me. 1980)