Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 33, § 460 (2026)

Conveyance of land abutting a road or way

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A conveyance of land which abuts a town or private way, county road, highway or proposed, unaccepted way laid out on a subdivision plan recorded in the registry of deeds shall be deemed to convey all of the grantor's interest in the portion of the road or way which abuts the land, except: [PL 1987, c. 385, §3 (RPR).]

1. Proposed, unaccepted ways. With respect to a proposed, unaccepted way laid out on a subdivision plan recorded in the registry of deeds, those rights provided to owners of other lots in the subdivision by Title 23, section 3031; and

[PL 1987, c. 385, §3 (NEW).]

2. All roads and ways. With respect to a town or private way, county road or highway, an easement of access necessary to provide ingress and egress to property adjoining the town or private way, county road or highway which shall be preserved, unless the grantor expressly reserves his title to the road or way by a specific reference to the road or way contained in the conveyance.

[PL 1987, c. 385, §3 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1973, c. 505 (NEW). PL 1975, c. 416 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 385, §3 (RPR).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · 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 Fourniers contend that the court erred by concluding that 33 M.R.S. § 460 (2008) does not grant them title to the centerline of the abutting roads.”

Bruce Tisdale v. Thelma G. Buch, 2013 ME 95 (Me. 2013). · cites it 2× “§§ 3027, 3031-3035 (2012); 33 M.R.S. §§ 460, 469-A (2012), 2 and in finding that the right-of-way is not part of a common scheme of development.”

Glidden v. Belden, 684 A.2d 1306 (Me. 1996). “1995) & 33 M.R.S.A. §§ 460, 469-A (1988)), for the purpose of clarifying title in proposed, unaccepted ways in subdivisions.”

Franklin Prop. Trust v. Foresite, Inc., 438 A.2d 218 (Me. 1981). “, (hereafter referred to collectively as “Foresite”) 1 claim title by virtue of 33 M.R.S.A. § 460 et seq. The plaintiff, Franklin Property Trust (hereafter “Franklin”), asserts that it owns the Sign property in fee subject to a nonexclusive right-of-way held by Foresite.”

Driscoll v. Mains, 2005 ME 52 (Me. 2005). “2004); 33 M.R.S.A §§ 460, 469-A (1999)). In 1997, the Paper Streets Act was amended so that any paper street that had not been constructed or used prior to September 29, 1987, was deemed vacated on the later of September 29, 1997, or fifteen years after a plan was recorded if…”

Brooks v. Carson, 48 A.3d 224 (Me. 2012). · cites it 2× “§§ 3027, 3031-3035 (2011); 33 M.R.S. §§ 460, 469-A (2011), 1 that permits a person to assert ownership of all or a portion of a paper street, and preclude others from using the owned portion of the paper street, requires that the person asserting the claim notify all record lot…”

Leslie S. Fissmer v. David D. Smith, 2019 ME 130 (Me. 2019). “In November of 2017, the court consolidated the three actions. [¶4] After a jury-waived trial, the court considered the parties’ claims, including their assertions of title acquired through the Paper Streets Act (PSA), 23 M.”

Leslie S. Fissmer v. David D. Smith, 2019 ME 130 (Me. 2019). “In November of 2017, the court consolidated the three actions. [¶4] After a jury-waived trial, the court considered the parties’ claims, including their assertions of title acquired through the Paper Streets Act (PSA), 23 M.”

Gloria Carignan v. Paul R. Dumas Jr., 2017 ME 15 (Me. 2017). “§§ 3027, 3031-3035 (2016); 33 M.R.S. §§ 460, 469-A (2016)) seeking a declaratory judgment that Carignan has no legal rights to any portion of Willow Street, that Dumas has an easement to use Willow Street to access his property, and that a public easement exists over Willow…”

Navarra v. Lakeview Improvement Soc'y (Me. Super. Ct 2004). · cites it 2× “Defendant's argument that Plaintiffs may not claim fee ownership of the Property, including the Easement, pursuant to 33 M.RS. § 460? and 33 MRS. § 465° is * Section 6651 provides, in pertinent part: A person in possession of real property, claiming an estate of freehold therein…”

Kladopoulos v. Grillo (Me. Super. Ct 2011). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs argue, in the alternative, that 33 M.R.S. § 460 prevents Defendants from barring Plaintiffs' travel over the Hawk Hill Road.”

Kinderhaus North LLC v. Nicolas (Me. Super. Ct 2020). “§§ 3027, 3031-3035; 33 M.R.S. §§ 460, 469-A, was enacted by the Legislature to address ancient claims to land, and clarify title to public or private rights featured on recorded subdivision plans.”

Show all 16 citing cases →

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 33, § 460(1) — 1 case

Brooks v. Carson, 48 A.3d 224 (Me. 2012). “§§ 3027, 3031-3035 (2011); 33 M.R.S. §§ 460, 469-A (2011), 1 that permits a person to assert ownership of all or a portion of a paper street, and preclude others from using the owned portion of the paper street, requires that the person asserting the claim notify all record lot…”

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.