Giovino v. Wyler

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1679





                                FRED GIOVINO, ET AL.,



                                Plaintiffs, Appellees,



                                          v.



                                  GEOFFREY D. WYLER,



                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Geoffrey D. Wyler on brief pro se.
_________________

            Edmond J. Bearor,  John W. McCarthy and Rudman & Winchell on brief
________________   ________________     _________________

        for appellees.





                                 ____________________



                                   February 5, 1998

                                 ____________________



































                 Per  Curiam.  We  have carefully reviewed  the record in
___________



            this  case,  including the  briefs  of  the parties  and  the



            findings  of  fact and  conclusions  of law  of  the district



            court.  We affirm.



                 We find  no error  in the  district court  determination



            that  the  1986  deed  conveying  land  from  IP  Timberlands



            Operating Company,  Ltd. [IPTO]  to International  Paper [IP]



            reserved to IPTO a right  to travel over the so-called "outer



            road."  Similarly, the court  did not err in determining that



            the deeds  of the other  plaintiffs also endowed them  with a



            right to travel over this road.



                 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann.  tit. 33,    201-A has no effect  on



            this issues  in this  case.  By  its plain  language, section



            201-A  pertains neither to the creation  or the extinction of



            an  easement but only to  whether an unrecorded deed provides



            "actual  notice"  of an  easement  to  subsequent purchasers.



            Since the  1986 deed between  IPTO and IP was  duly recorded,



            pursuant to  Me. Rev.  Stat. Ann.  tit. 33,    201, the  deed



            itself gave constructive notice of the easement to subsequent



            purchasers like  Wyler.   See Westman  v. Armitage,  215 A.2d
___ _______     ________



            919, 922 (Me. 1966) (recordation is "constructive notice .  .



            to after purchasers under the same grantor") (citing cases).



                 Finally, the district  court did not commit  clear error



            in  finding  that  IPTO's  improvements  to  the  outer  road



            constituted reasonable maintenance.







                                         -2-



























                 Affirmed.
________







































































































                                         -3-