no, it is not correct. An undeveloped roadway is not fair game for every Tom dick and Harry to use. It remains in control of the servient tenant until such time the dominant tenant chooses to exercise their rights and create a roadway.
I never said anything about the road not being developed was proof of abandonment. I said WHEN a row is abandoned. Learn to read
and im excited that you have reviewed the germane land records and know whether this is an overlayed easement or a row reserved specifically for the future development of a road. I’m curious as to how you discovered it with such little specific information provided.
You also forgot to highlight this in your citation. I’m sure you noticed it was preceded by OR which means the acts described within section 2 alone are adequate to provide prima facia proof of abandonment.
2) adverse possession by the servient estate. The elements necessary to establish adverse possession by the servient estate are the same as those that must be proven when an adverse possessor attempts to deprive the true owner of a fee interest.
D'Angelo v. McNutt, 2005 ME 31, ∂ 13, 868 A.2d 239 (emphasis removed) (quotation marks omitted).