## Facts

- David Lloyd Tripp owned a 20-acre parcel set back from Jenkins Road in Saco, Maine, lacking direct road access except by crossing neighboring parcels.
- A. Kenneth Huff and Alfred and Joane Barlow owned the parcels between Tripp’s land and Jenkins Road.
- In 1833, a 40-acre tract was conveyed to Nicholas and Jeremiah Hearne as co-owners.
- In 1863, the 40-acre tract was divided so that Jeremiah received the northerly half (later Tripp’s parcel) and Nicholas received the southerly half.
- Nicholas also owned additional land extending to Jenkins Road, later becoming the Huff/Barlow parcels.
- In November 1863, Nicholas conveyed land to the Andrews, including language “saving and accepting a way for Jeremiah Hearne and assigns to his lot lying back of and adjoining the above.”
- The parties stipulated that Jeremiah Hearne was not a party to the 1863 deed containing the “way” language.
- Tripp sued for a declaration and injunction establishing a right of way over defendants’ land, asserting an express easement, an easement by necessity, and an easement by implication.
- After a jury-waived trial, the Superior Court entered judgment for the defendants on all theories, and Tripp appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1863 deed language “saving and accepting a way for Jeremiah Hearne and assigns” created an express easement benefiting Jeremiah’s successors, including Tripp.
2. Whether Tripp established an easement by necessity over the defendants’ parcels to reach his landlocked property.
3. Whether an easement by implication arose from the historical severance and circumstances of use and access.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the judgment for Huff and the Barlows.
- The court held the deed language did not create an express easement because it attempted to reserve or create an interest in favor of a non-party to the deed.
- The court held no easement by necessity arose because the required unity of title between the dominant and servient estates at the time of severance was not shown.
- The court held no easement by implication arose for the same reason: the unity-of-title prerequisite at severance was lacking.

## Legal Principles

- A reservation or exception in a deed cannot operate as a grant of a new property interest to a person who is not a party to the instrument (“stranger to the deed” rule).
- Easements by necessity require unity of title and a severance that leaves one parcel without access, with the way implied over the other parcel from the common ownership.
- Easements by implication similarly require prior common ownership of the dominant and servient estates at the time of severance, along with circumstances supporting implication; absent unity of title, no implied easement arises.

## Conclusion

The court concluded Tripp had no right of way across the defendants’ land because the deed’s “way” clause could not benefit a non-party, and the historical conveyances did not establish unity of title necessary to imply an easement by necessity or implication.


Tripp v. Huff, 606 A.2d 792 (Me. 1992)