## Facts

- A larger tract (later acquired by James Rutland) historically accessed a public way via Stephenson Lane, a road crossing a smaller parcel (later acquired by John and Brenda Mullen).
- The common owner’s historic use of Stephenson Lane gave rise to an implied right-of-way benefiting the larger tract.
- In 1971, the Mullens purchased the smaller parcel and altered the lane area, including converting part of the old road into a parking lot; over time the lane largely disappeared.
- In 1997, Rutland purchased the larger parcel intending to develop a residential subdivision and sought to use Stephenson Lane for access, but the lane was no longer suitable for motor-vehicle traffic.
- Rutland asserted continued rights under the implied easement and claimed the Mullens interfered with his ability to use it for development.
- The Mullens contended any implied easement had terminated by abandonment based on long-term nonuse and the changes made to the lane.
- Rutland also pursued a tort claim alleging interference with a prospective economic advantage related to the subdivision.

## Issues

1. Whether the Mullens’ summary-judgment record made a prima facie showing that the implied easement over Stephenson Lane was abandoned.
2. Whether Rutland proved, as a matter of law on summary judgment, tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage through fraud.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for Rutland on the abandonment issue, holding the Mullens failed to make a prima facie showing of abandonment.
- The court vacated the portion of summary judgment granting Rutland relief on tortious interference by fraud because the record did not establish the required elements as a matter of law.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate decision.

## Legal Principles

- Abandonment of an easement requires both nonuse and conduct clearly manifesting an intent to abandon; nonuse alone is insufficient.
- The party asserting abandonment bears the burden on summary judgment to make a prima facie showing of each abandonment element.
- Unilateral physical alterations by the servient owner, even combined with prolonged nonuse, do not establish abandonment absent clear evidence of the easement holder’s intent to relinquish the right.
- Tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage by fraud requires: (1) a valid contract or prospective economic advantage, (2) interference through fraud or intimidation, and (3) damages proximately caused by the interference.
- Summary judgment is improper on an interference-by-fraud claim where the record does not conclusively establish fraudulent interference and causation.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Mullens did not meet their burden to show abandonment of an implied right-of-way, but it vacated summary judgment for Rutland on tortious interference by fraud because the evidentiary record did not prove the fraud-based elements as a matter of law.


Rutland v. Mullen, 798 A.2d 1104 (Me. 2002)