The Maine Supreme Judicial Court has affirmed a Business and Consumer Docket ruling that establishes an implied easement for recreational purposes on private beachfront property in the Popham Beach Estates subdivision in Phippsburg. The decision, issued Jan. 13, 2026, resolves a property dispute between multiple landowners over access rights to Sea Wall Beach.
The case, *Richard G. Tappen et al. v. Clark T. Hill et al.*, involved property owners Richard G. Tappen, Sheila M. Tappen, and Tapco, LLC, who challenged a lower court's determination that their Sea Wall Beach property is subject to an implied easement benefiting neighboring property owners. The defendants include Clark T. Hill, Meredith A. Inocencio, Richard S. Hill, Dianna S. Kilgallen, Brian Kilgallen, and Hill Family Cottage Corp.
Chief Justice Andrew Stanfill, writing for the court, held that the Business and Consumer Docket properly understood and applied the doctrine of implied easement by subdivision and sale. The court also affirmed the lower court's decision declining to establish the precise location of the northern boundary of Sea Wall Beach.
The dispute centers on properties within the Popham Beach Estates subdivision, which is documented in two recorded plans from 1893 and 1922. According to court records, a row of lots numbered 204 through 208 is situated in an area designated as "sand dunes" on the 1893 plan. These lots border Sea Wall Beach, which is labeled on both the 1893 and 1922 subdivision plans.
The case highlights the complex legal doctrine of implied easements, which can arise when property is subdivided and sold. Under this doctrine, courts may find that certain use rights continue to exist even when they are not explicitly stated in deeds or other property documents. The doctrine typically applies when the use was apparent and continuous before the property division and when the easement is reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the benefited property.
The Tappens argued against the establishment of the implied easement, seeking to limit access to their beachfront property. However, the trial court found that the subdivision's history and the apparent use patterns established the legal foundation for the recreational easement.
The Business and Consumer Docket, presided over by Judge McKeon, originally declared that the implied easement exists for recreational purposes. This determination means that the Hill Family and other defendants retain rights to use the Sea Wall Beach area for recreational activities, despite the Tappens' ownership of the underlying property.
In addition to challenging the easement determination, the Tappens also appealed the court's refusal to establish the precise location of Sea Wall Beach's northern boundary. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court found that the lower court did not clearly err in declining to make this boundary determination.
The case was argued before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court on Sept. 10, 2025. The five-member panel included Chief Justice Stanfill and Justices Mead and Lawrence, along with Associate Retired Justices Hjelm and Humphrey. Justice Hjelm participated in developing the opinion despite not being present at oral argument, as permitted under Maine appellate rules.
The decision reflects the ongoing challenges property owners face regarding beach access rights in Maine's coastal communities. As waterfront property becomes increasingly valuable and development pressure intensifies, disputes over traditional access rights and property boundaries have become more common.
The court's affirmation of the implied easement doctrine demonstrates Maine's commitment to preserving established use patterns, particularly in subdivisions with long histories of shared access. The ruling suggests that property owners cannot simply eliminate traditional access rights through ownership changes, especially when those rights were established through the original subdivision design.
For the Tappens, the decision means they must continue to allow the neighboring property owners recreational access to Sea Wall Beach. The Hill Family and other defendants successfully defended their position that the subdivision's historical development created permanent access rights that survive changes in property ownership.
The case also illustrates the importance of understanding property history when purchasing real estate, particularly in older subdivisions where use patterns may have been established decades ago. Potential buyers should carefully examine subdivision plans and historical use patterns to understand any potential easement obligations.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court's decision in *Tappen v. Hill* adds to the body of law governing implied easements in subdivision contexts. The ruling provides guidance for future disputes involving similar claims of traditional access rights in coastal communities throughout Maine and demonstrates the courts' willingness to enforce historical use patterns even against current property owners' objections.