Laserfiche WebLink
Pleadings. <br />13. Petitioners (Van Eeckhouts) in their Petition request, among other things, that the <br />Court construe the driveway easement (Doc. No. 432783) and the utility easement (Doc. <br />No. 998133) as "serving all parcels of land into which Tract H, Registered Land Survey <br />No. 352 may lawfully be subdivided." Defendant (Dunn) in her Answer requests, among <br />other things, that the Court (a) determine "the scope of the disputed driveway and utility <br />easements," (b) prohibit "Petitioners from use of any greater portion of Tract G than is <br />currently occupied by the existing driveway," and (c) prohibit "Petitioners from <br />installation and maintenance of utilities other than for use in serving a single residence." <br />14. In her Post Trial Memorandum the Defendant requests a result rather different <br />from that stated in her Answer. Specifically, Defendant asks for an Order providing that <br />(a) the owners of Tract H be allowed to use Tract G "solely for private 'driveway' <br />purposes," (b) the Petitioners "may not grant any easement rights in Tract G to any third <br />party, including the City of Orono," (c) "the appurtenant Driveway Easement does not <br />entitle Petitioners to construct a 'private road' over Tract G," (d) the "Petitioners have a <br />utility easement over Tract G appurtenant to Tract H allowing Petitioners to use Tract G <br />solely for the installation and maintenance of private utilities," and (e) the "Petitioners <br />may not grant any easement rights in Tract G to any third party, including the City of <br />Orono or any public utility." At the hearing Petitioners objected to the introduction of <br />evidence that would tend to support Defendant's expanded requests. In their Post- <br />Hearing Memorandum Petitioners asked for an additional hearing if such requests were to <br />be considered. <br />Driveway Easement, Doc. No. 432783. <br />15. The easement rights stated in Doc. No. 432783, which was filed August 24, 1954, <br />actually arose at an earlier time. According to Torrens Case No. 11775, the Applicant in <br />that matter was obligated to convey such easement rights to one Olive C. Case. The <br />present desires of the Petitioners and the Defendant in this matter, or even their intentions <br />9