## Facts

- A conservation easement was donated in 2003 over 85 acres (“Protected Parcel”) of a 100-acre property; the remaining 15 acres with a residence and farm buildings were not restricted.
- The easement’s stated purpose was perpetual protection of natural and scenic values while allowing “residential recreational purposes.”
- The deed expressly prohibited commercial and income-producing uses of the Protected Parcel, with limited exceptions not implicated.
- The owners bought the property in 2004 with record notice of the easement.
- The owners planned a for-profit recreation facility on the unrestricted 15 acres and intended to allow paying guests to use the Protected Parcel for activities such as fishing, skating, skiing, snowshoeing, and hiking.
- The easement holder objected that guest access tied to paid admissions was a prohibited commercial or income-producing use of the Protected Parcel.
- The easement holder sued for declaratory and injunctive relief; the State intervened to support enforcement.

## Issues

1. Whether the State could intervene in an action to enforce a conservation easement.
2. Whether the action should have been dismissed for failure to satisfy a contractual mediation requirement before suit.
3. Whether the easement’s “residential recreational” allowance permitted paying guests of a commercial facility to use the Protected Parcel despite explicit prohibitions on commercial or income-producing use.
4. Whether summary judgment and a permanent injunction were improper due to genuine disputes of material fact.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment for the easement holder and the State.
- The State’s intervention was proper given statutory authority and the public interest served by conservation easements.
- The mediation provision did not require dismissal under the circumstances presented.
- The proposed use—allowing paying guests to recreate on the Protected Parcel as part of a for-profit enterprise—was a prohibited commercial or income-producing use.
- Summary judgment and a permanent injunction were appropriate because deed interpretation was a question of law and the material facts regarding intended use were not genuinely disputed.

## Legal Principles

- Unambiguous conservation easements are interpreted and enforced according to their plain language; extrinsic evidence is not used to alter clear deed terms.
- A deed’s stated conservation purpose and specific use prohibitions control the scope of permissible activities on the restricted land.
- Recreational activities can constitute a commercial or income-producing use when access to the restricted parcel is part of a paid business arrangement.
- Government entities may have statutory authority to participate in, and support, enforcement of conservation easements serving public conservation purposes.
- Injunctive relief is an appropriate remedy to prevent threatened or ongoing violations of a conservation easement.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the conservation easement as written, holding that permitting paying customers of a commercial recreation business to use the protected acreage violated the deed’s explicit prohibition on commercial and income-producing uses, and it upheld the State’s intervention, summary judgment, and a permanent injunction.


Windham Land Trust v. Jeffords, 967 A.2d 690 (Me. 2009)