Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 23
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 23, § 3031 (2026)

Public and private rights in proposed, unaccepted ways in subdivisions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Public rights.  From the date of recording of a subdivision plan in the registry of deeds, the public acquires rights of incipient dedication to public use of the ways laid out on the plan. If a proposed way laid out in the plan is not accepted by the municipality within 20 years from the date of recording of the plan, the public rights in that way terminate.  
[PL 1987, c. 385, §2 (NEW).]
2.  Private rights.  A person acquiring title to land shown on a subdivision plan recorded in the registry of deeds acquires a private right-of-way over the ways laid out in the plan. If a proposed, unaccepted way is not constructed within 20 years from the date of recording of the plan, and if the private rights created by the recording of the plan are not constructed and utilized as private rights within that 20-year period, the private rights-of-way in that way terminate.  
Unless title has been reserved pursuant to Title 33, section 469‑A, when the private rights established by this subsection are terminated as provided in this subsection or by order of vacation by the municipality, the title of the fee interest in the proposed, unaccepted way for which the private rights-of-way have terminated passes to the abutting property owners to the centerline of the way.  
[PL 1987, c. 385, §2 (NEW).]
3.  Shorter duration of public and private rights; rights of lesser extent.  Notwithstanding subsections 1 and 2, the developer or other person recording a subdivision plan in the registry of deeds may set a shorter duration for the public and private rights established in subsections 1 and 2 than the period provided in those subsections. The developer or other person recording the subdivision plan shall cause the shorter duration to be noted on the face of the subdivision plan.  
Pursuant to a subdivision review under Title 30‑A, chapter 187, subchapter IV, the municipal reviewing authority may set a shorter duration for the public and private rights established in subsections 1 and 2 than the period provided in those subsections. The municipal reviewing authority shall cause the shorter duration to be noted on the face of the subdivision plan.  
Nothing in this section may be construed to prohibit the developer or other person recording a subdivision plan in the registry of deeds from granting rights of lesser extent than those established in subsections 1 and 2. If rights of lesser extent are granted, the person recording the subdivision plan shall cause the extent of those rights to be described on the face of the subdivision plan and in any conveyance of land shown on the plan.  
[PL 1995, c. 462, Pt. B, §4 (AMD).]
4.  Fee interest reserved by owner of subdivision.  If the owner of land for which a subdivision is proposed reserves the fee interest in any ways proposed on the subdivision plan, the owner shall place a statement of this reservation in all conveyances by him of land in the subdivision.  
[PL 1987, c. 385, §2 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1987, c. 385, §2 (NEW). PL 1995, c. 462, §B4 (AMD).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2024 · leading case: Fournier v. Elliott, 966 A.2d 410 (Me. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fournier v. Elliott, 966 A.2d 410 (Me. 2009). · cites it 8× “The Elliotts filed an answer and counterclaim for declaratory judgment, alleging that they held title to the roads pursuant to 23 M.R.S. § 3031 (2008). [¶ 6] The Fourniers moved for summary judgment and argued that, pursuant to section 465, 2 they were deemed to hold title to…”
Murch v. Nash, 861 A.2d 645 (Me. 2004). · cites it 4× “23 M.R.S.A. § 3031(2X1992). [¶ 15] Murch concedes that Nash satisfies the two requirements set forth in the first sentence of section 3031(2):(1) that her predecessor in title acquired “rights to land shown on a subdivision plan recorded in the registry of deeds”; and (2) that…”
Driscoll v. Mains, 2005 ME 52 (Me. 2005). · cites it 2× “Title 23 M.R.S.A. § 3031(2) addresses public and private rights in paper streets within subdivisions, and states: Private rights.”
Helen Rivas Rose v. William Parsons Jr., 2013 ME 77 (Me. 2013). · cites it 2× “The Neighbors’ attorney sent a letter to Rose and Merrill’s attorney and the buyers’ attorney stating that the Farm Lot does not have deeded access to Roads A and H because the easements were terminated by 23 M.R.S. § 3031 (2012) or by abandonment.”
Lamson v. Cote, 2001 ME 109 (Me. 2001). “For similar reasons, Lamson cannot oust the Cotes from the road based on an application of 23 M.R.S.A. §§ 3031 and 3032 (1992 & Supp.”
Glidden v. Belden, 684 A.2d 1306 (Me. 1996). “The term "subdivision” is not defined in 23 M.R.S.A. § 3031 or anywhere else in chapter 304, “Acquisition of Property for Highway Purposes," of which section 3031 is a part.”
Goudreau v. Pine Springs Road & Water, LLC, 2012 ME 70 (Me. 2012). “See 23 M.R.S. § 3031(2) (2011); Murch v. Nash, 2004 ME 139, ¶ 12 , 861 A.”
Bruce Tisdale v. Thelma G. Buch, 2013 ME 95 (Me. 2013). “[¶ 12] Tisdale further argues that he acquired private rights in the right-of-way that have not terminated pursuant to 23 M.R.S. § 3031(2). Tisdale has no such rights, however, because his lots are not shown on the 1969 plan that depicts the right-of-way, and his deeds do not…”
Gloria Carignan v. Paul R. Dumas Jr., 2017 ME 15 (Me. 2017). · cites it 7× “Dumas contends that the court erred by interpreting a provision of the Paper Streets Act, 23 M.R.S. § 3031 (2016), to apply retrospectively.”
John M. Carter v. Michael A. Voncannon, 2024 ME 65 (Me. 2024). · cites it 2× “23 M.R.S. § 3031(2) (2024) (“A person acquiring title to land shown on a subdivision plan recorded in the registry of deeds acquires a private right-of-way over the ways laid out on the plan.”
Gloria Carignan v. Paul R. Dumas Jr., 2017 ME 15 (Me. 2017). · cites it 6× “Dumas contends that the court erred by interpreting a provision of the Paper Streets Act, 23 M.R.S. § 3031 (2016), to apply retrospectively.”
Rose v. Parsons (Me. Super. Ct 2017). · cites it 4× “The defendants have argued that whatever rights the plaintiffs once had have been lost through the application of either the doctrines of merger or abandonment or by the application of Maine's statute governing public and private ways in proposed, unaccepted ways in subdivisions…”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 23, § 3031(1) — 4 cases
Fournier v. Elliott, 966 A.2d 410 (Me. 2009). “The Elliotts filed an answer and counterclaim for declaratory judgment, alleging that they held title to the roads pursuant to 23 M.R.S. § 3031 (2008). [¶ 6] The Fourniers moved for summary judgment and argued that, pursuant to section 465, 2 they were deemed to hold title to…”
Murch v. Nash, 861 A.2d 645 (Me. 2004). “23 M.R.S.A. § 3031(2X1992). [¶ 15] Murch concedes that Nash satisfies the two requirements set forth in the first sentence of section 3031(2):(1) that her predecessor in title acquired “rights to land shown on a subdivision plan recorded in the registry of deeds”; and (2) that…”
Gloria Carignan v. Paul R. Dumas Jr., 2017 ME 15 (Me. 2017). “Dumas contends that the court erred by interpreting a provision of the Paper Streets Act, 23 M.R.S. § 3031 (2016), to apply retrospectively.”
Gloria Carignan v. Paul R. Dumas Jr., 2017 ME 15 (Me. 2017). “Dumas contends that the court erred by interpreting a provision of the Paper Streets Act, 23 M.R.S. § 3031 (2016), to apply retrospectively.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 23, § 3031(1)(A) — 1 case
Hartwell v. Town of Medway (Me. Super. Ct 2001).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 23, § 3031(2) — 15 cases
Driscoll v. Mains, 2005 ME 52 (Me. 2005). “Title 23 M.R.S.A. § 3031(2) addresses public and private rights in paper streets within subdivisions, and states: Private rights.”
Fournier v. Elliott, 966 A.2d 410 (Me. 2009). “The Elliotts filed an answer and counterclaim for declaratory judgment, alleging that they held title to the roads pursuant to 23 M.R.S. § 3031 (2008). [¶ 6] The Fourniers moved for summary judgment and argued that, pursuant to section 465, 2 they were deemed to hold title to…”
Murch v. Nash, 861 A.2d 645 (Me. 2004). “23 M.R.S.A. § 3031(2X1992). [¶ 15] Murch concedes that Nash satisfies the two requirements set forth in the first sentence of section 3031(2):(1) that her predecessor in title acquired “rights to land shown on a subdivision plan recorded in the registry of deeds”; and (2) that…”
Goudreau v. Pine Springs Road & Water, LLC, 2012 ME 70 (Me. 2012). “See 23 M.R.S. § 3031(2) (2011); Murch v. Nash, 2004 ME 139, ¶ 12 , 861 A.”
Helen Rivas Rose v. William Parsons Jr., 2013 ME 77 (Me. 2013). “The Neighbors’ attorney sent a letter to Rose and Merrill’s attorney and the buyers’ attorney stating that the Farm Lot does not have deeded access to Roads A and H because the easements were terminated by 23 M.R.S. § 3031 (2012) or by abandonment.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 23, § 3031(3) — 1 case
Fournier v. Elliott, 966 A.2d 410 (Me. 2009). “The Elliotts filed an answer and counterclaim for declaratory judgment, alleging that they held title to the roads pursuant to 23 M.R.S. § 3031 (2008). [¶ 6] The Fourniers moved for summary judgment and argued that, pursuant to section 465, 2 they were deemed to hold title to…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 23, § 3031(4) — 1 case
Fournier v. Elliott, 966 A.2d 410 (Me. 2009). “The Elliotts filed an answer and counterclaim for declaratory judgment, alleging that they held title to the roads pursuant to 23 M.R.S. § 3031 (2008). [¶ 6] The Fourniers moved for summary judgment and argued that, pursuant to section 465, 2 they were deemed to hold title to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.