Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 33
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 33, § 469-A (2026)

Title to proposed, unaccepted ways

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Reservation of title.  Any conveyance made before September 29, 1987 that conveyed land abutting upon a proposed, unaccepted way laid out on a subdivision plan recorded in the registry of deeds is deemed to have conveyed all of the grantor's interest in the portion of the way that abuts the land conveyed, unless the grantor expressly reserved the grantor's title to the way by a specific reference to this reservation in the conveyance of the land.  
[PL 2011, c. 312, §1 (AMD).]
2.  Intent to reserve.  Any grantor who, before September 29, 1987, conveyed land abutting a proposed, unaccepted way laid out on a subdivision plan recorded in the registry of deeds with the intent to reserve title to the way, but who did not expressly reserve title to the way as required in subsection 1, or any person who claims title to the way by, through or under the grantor, may preserve the grantor's claim by recording the notice set forth in subsection 3, in the registry of deeds where the pertinent subdivision plan is recorded, within 2 years after September 29, 1987.  
[PL 2011, c. 312, §1 (AMD).]
3.  Notice.  The notice required under subsection 2 shall contain:  
A. An intelligible description of the way or portion of a way in which title is being claimed;   [PL 1987, c. 385, §4 (NEW).]
B. The name and address of the person on whose behalf the title is being claimed;   [PL 1987, c. 385, §4 (NEW).]
C. A description, including specific reference, by date of recording and the volume and page numbers, to that conveyance, of the recorded instrument in which the person claims title to the way or portion of the way which was intended to be reserved; and   [PL 1987, c. 385, §4 (NEW).]
D. A duly verified oath taken by the person claiming title before a person authorized to administer oaths.   [PL 1987, c. 385, §4 (NEW).]
[PL 1987, c. 385, §4 (NEW).]
4.  Register's duties.  The register of deeds shall enter upon the margin of the recorded conveyance, described in the notice under subsection 3, paragraph C, the volume and page numbers where the notice is recorded.  
The register of deeds may charge the same fee for recording the notice that is charged for recording deeds.  
[PL 1987, c. 385, §4 (NEW).]
5.  Who may present notice for recording.  The notice required under subsection 2 may be presented for recording by the person claiming title or a person acting on his behalf. Disability or lack of knowledge by the person claiming title shall not extend the time limitations related to the recording of the notice.  
[PL 1987, c. 385, §4 (NEW).]
6.  Lack of reservation.  Any person owning land in this State abutting a proposed, unaccepted way or portion of a proposed, unaccepted way, whose predecessors in title had not reserved title in the way under subsection 1 or 2, is deemed to own to the center line of the way or portion of the way, except for a proposed, unaccepted way under subsection 6‑A.  
[PL 2011, c. 312, §2 (AMD).]
6-A.  Bounded by other property.  A person owning land in a subdivision abutting a proposed, unaccepted way or portion of a proposed, unaccepted way owns the entire width of the portion of the way that abuts the person's land if:  
A. The proposed, unaccepted way or portion of the proposed, unaccepted way is part of the subdivision and is laid out on the subdivision plan recorded in the registry of deeds;   [PL 2011, c. 312, §3 (NEW).]
B. The person's predecessors in title had not reserved title in the proposed, unaccepted way or portion of the proposed, unaccepted way under subsection 1 or 2; and   [PL 2011, c. 312, §3 (NEW).]
C. The proposed, unaccepted way or portion of the proposed, unaccepted way is bounded on the opposite side by land that is not included in the subdivision.   [PL 2011, c. 312, §3 (NEW).]
If the land on the opposite side of a proposed, unaccepted way or a portion of a proposed, unaccepted way under this subsection extends beyond the person's land, then the person owns the entire width of that portion of the extension of the proposed, unaccepted way that is not bounded by another owner's land on the person's side of the way.  
[PL 2011, c. 312, §3 (NEW).]
7.  Action to establish title.  In any action concerning title to a proposed, unaccepted way, the burden of proof concerning the grantor's intent to reserve title shall be on the grantor or those claiming title by, through or under the grantor.  
[PL 1987, c. 385, §4 (NEW).]
8.  Construction of laws.  Nothing contained in this section may be construed to extend the period for the bringing of an action or for the doing of any other required act under any statute of limitations.  
This section shall be liberally construed to affect the legislative purpose of clarifying the title to land underlying proposed, unaccepted ways by eliminating the possibility of ancient claims.  
[PL 1987, c. 385, §4 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1987, c. 385, §4 (NEW). PL 2011, c. 312, §§1-3 (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 25 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2000–2024 · leading case: Lamson v. Cote, 2001 ME 109 (Me. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lamson v. Cote, 2001 ME 109 (Me. 2001). · cites it 9× “See 33 M.R.S.A. § 469-A (1999); see also 23 M.”
Tarbox v. Blaisdell, 2009 ME 123 (Me. 2009). · cites it 10× “The Blaisdell heirs and HDV argue that the court improperly applied 33 M.R.S. § 469-A (2008) in finding in the Tarboxes’ favor, and in determining the portion of the abutting strip of property to which the Tarboxes are entitled.”
Bruce Tisdale v. Thelma G. Buch, 2013 ME 95 (Me. 2013). · cites it 7× “In particular, 33 M.R.S. § 469-A “was created to resolve ownership disputes regarding roads and streets laid out on subdivision plans where the original owner did not reserve title in the roads and where the roads have never been accepted by a town.”
Leslie S. Fissmer v. David D. Smith, 2019 ME 130 (Me. 2019). · cites it 19× “33 M.R.S. § 469-A(6-A). [¶21] Although the term “proposed, unaccepted way” is not defined in the PSA, we have construed the term to include “roads, constructed or unconstructed, that are depicted on a subdivision plan recorded in the registry of deeds and that are proposed to a…”
Driscoll v. Mains, 2005 ME 52 (Me. 2005). · cites it 2× “The Mainses argue, inter alia, that the court erred when it applied 33 M.R.S.A. § 469-A (1999) to divest them of record ownership of the paper streets.”
Leslie S. Fissmer v. David D. Smith, 2019 ME 130 (Me. 2019). · cites it 17× ““In particular, 33 M.R.S. § 469-A was created to resolve ownership disputes regarding roads and streets laid out on subdivision plans where the original owner did not reserve title in the roads and where the roads have never been accepted by a town.”
Fournier v. Elliott, 966 A.2d 410 (Me. 2009). “[¶ 24] The second paragraph of section 3031(2) further provides that if a private right-of-way expires, title to the way passes to the abutting landowner to the centerline of the way, but only if the developer failed to reserve title pursuant to 33 M.R.S. § 469-A. Section 469-A,…”
Hartwell v. Stanley, 2002 ME 29 (Me. 2002). “In Lamson , we held that the plaintiff property owner did not have a property interest, pursuant to 33 M.R.S.A. § 469-A, in a proposed, unaccepted way because the plaintiff's properly had been conveyed prior to the recording of the subdivision plan that established the disputed…”
Kinderhaus North LLC v. Karl Nicols, 2024 ME 34 (Me. 2024). “13 As subsequently amended, the statute is codified at 33 M.R.S. § 469-A (2024). 31 [¶57] Section 3033 requires that specific information be included in the notice and dictates the manner in which the notice is to be recorded and sent.”
Martin v. City of Lewiston, 2008 ME 15 (Me. 2008). “3 By operation of statute, ownership of proposed, unaccepted ways laid out in a subdivision plan prior to September 29, 1987, is conveyed to the abutting landowners unless the grantor expressly reserved title by a specific reference to 33 M.R.S. § 469-A(l) (2007). [¶ 5] Although…”
Gloria Carignan v. Paul R. Dumas Jr., 2017 ME 15 (Me. 2017). · cites it 3× “The court concluded that pursuant to 33 M.R.S. § 469-A (2016), addressing reservation of title to proposed, unaccepted ways, Carignan, through her predecessors-in-title, acquired title to the centerline of that portion of Willow Street abutting her property.”
Brooks v. Carson, 48 A.3d 224 (Me. 2012). “The Paper Streets Act at 33 M.R.S. § 469-A (2010), applicable to this case when presented to the trial court, has been amended by P.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 33, § 469-A(1) — 4 cases
Leslie S. Fissmer v. David D. Smith, 2019 ME 130 (Me. 2019). “33 M.R.S. § 469-A(6-A). [¶21] Although the term “proposed, unaccepted way” is not defined in the PSA, we have construed the term to include “roads, constructed or unconstructed, that are depicted on a subdivision plan recorded in the registry of deeds and that are proposed to a…”
Leslie S. Fissmer v. David D. Smith, 2019 ME 130 (Me. 2019). ““In particular, 33 M.R.S. § 469-A was created to resolve ownership disputes regarding roads and streets laid out on subdivision plans where the original owner did not reserve title in the roads and where the roads have never been accepted by a town.”
John M. Carter v. Michael A. Voncannon, 2024 ME 65 (Me. 2024).
Naymie v. Daigle (Me. Super. Ct 2020).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 33, § 469-A(2) — 2 cases
Tarbox v. Blaisdell, 2009 ME 123 (Me. 2009). “The Blaisdell heirs and HDV argue that the court improperly applied 33 M.R.S. § 469-A (2008) in finding in the Tarboxes’ favor, and in determining the portion of the abutting strip of property to which the Tarboxes are entitled.”
John M. Carter v. Michael A. Voncannon, 2024 ME 65 (Me. 2024).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 33, § 469-A(6) — 6 cases
Lamson v. Cote, 2001 ME 109 (Me. 2001). “See 33 M.R.S.A. § 469-A (1999); see also 23 M.”
Bruce Tisdale v. Thelma G. Buch, 2013 ME 95 (Me. 2013). “In particular, 33 M.R.S. § 469-A “was created to resolve ownership disputes regarding roads and streets laid out on subdivision plans where the original owner did not reserve title in the roads and where the roads have never been accepted by a town.”
Leslie S. Fissmer v. David D. Smith, 2019 ME 130 (Me. 2019). “33 M.R.S. § 469-A(6-A). [¶21] Although the term “proposed, unaccepted way” is not defined in the PSA, we have construed the term to include “roads, constructed or unconstructed, that are depicted on a subdivision plan recorded in the registry of deeds and that are proposed to a…”
Tarbox v. Blaisdell, 2009 ME 123 (Me. 2009). “The Blaisdell heirs and HDV argue that the court improperly applied 33 M.R.S. § 469-A (2008) in finding in the Tarboxes’ favor, and in determining the portion of the abutting strip of property to which the Tarboxes are entitled.”
Leslie S. Fissmer v. David D. Smith, 2019 ME 130 (Me. 2019). ““In particular, 33 M.R.S. § 469-A was created to resolve ownership disputes regarding roads and streets laid out on subdivision plans where the original owner did not reserve title in the roads and where the roads have never been accepted by a town.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 33, § 469-A(8) — 2 cases
Leslie S. Fissmer v. David D. Smith, 2019 ME 130 (Me. 2019). “33 M.R.S. § 469-A(6-A). [¶21] Although the term “proposed, unaccepted way” is not defined in the PSA, we have construed the term to include “roads, constructed or unconstructed, that are depicted on a subdivision plan recorded in the registry of deeds and that are proposed to a…”
Leslie S. Fissmer v. David D. Smith, 2019 ME 130 (Me. 2019). ““In particular, 33 M.R.S. § 469-A was created to resolve ownership disputes regarding roads and streets laid out on subdivision plans where the original owner did not reserve title in the roads and where the roads have never been accepted by a town.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 33, § 469-A(l) — 6 cases
Bruce Tisdale v. Thelma G. Buch, 2013 ME 95 (Me. 2013). “In particular, 33 M.R.S. § 469-A “was created to resolve ownership disputes regarding roads and streets laid out on subdivision plans where the original owner did not reserve title in the roads and where the roads have never been accepted by a town.”
Lamson v. Cote, 2001 ME 109 (Me. 2001). “See 33 M.R.S.A. § 469-A (1999); see also 23 M.”
Driscoll v. Mains, 2005 ME 52 (Me. 2005). “The Mainses argue, inter alia, that the court erred when it applied 33 M.R.S.A. § 469-A (1999) to divest them of record ownership of the paper streets.”
Tarbox v. Blaisdell, 2009 ME 123 (Me. 2009). “The Blaisdell heirs and HDV argue that the court improperly applied 33 M.R.S. § 469-A (2008) in finding in the Tarboxes’ favor, and in determining the portion of the abutting strip of property to which the Tarboxes are entitled.”
Martin v. City of Lewiston, 2008 ME 15 (Me. 2008). “3 By operation of statute, ownership of proposed, unaccepted ways laid out in a subdivision plan prior to September 29, 1987, is conveyed to the abutting landowners unless the grantor expressly reserved title by a specific reference to 33 M.R.S. § 469-A(l) (2007). [¶ 5] Although…”
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.