Easements

Massachusetts Land Court Interprets 1927 Deed to Determine Easement Rights

Published on: January 18, 2016 | by Pulgini & Norton, LLP

In a recent case, the Massachusetts Land Court was called on to decide a property dispute involving the use of a private way to access a parcel of land. In Pearson v. Bayview Associates, Inc. (Mass. Land Ct. Jan. 11, 2016), the plaintiffs sought to use a private way owned by the defendant in order to access the lot they currently owned. The plaintiffs claimed passage rights over the private way pursuant to an easement that the plaintiffs alleged was included in the 1927 deed. In response, the defendant argued that the 1927 easement does not lie along the private way, nor does it touch the land that the plaintiffs presently own.

In 1999, the plaintiffs split their land into two lots, retaining one parcel and selling the other. The plaintiffs, however, did not reserve any record easement to pass across the lot they sold, leaving them landlocked. In Pearson, the plaintiffs sought to establish a right of way not over the lot they sold but instead over the private way, alleging that they have rights to use it pursuant to the 1927 easement. Accordingly, the court was presented with the task of determining the location of the easement created in 1927 in order to decide whether the easement reached the plaintiff’s parcel of land.

Massachusetts Court Rules in Property Dispute Involving Deed Restrictions

Published on: January 11, 2016 | by Pulgini & Norton, LLP

A Massachusetts Land Court recently decided an easement dispute involving deed restrictions and the overburdening of a right of way in the case of Stepanian v. Saraceno (Mass. Land Ct. Jan. 5, 2016). In 1985, the grantor subdivided his waterfront property and sold the resulting vacant lot (244) next to his existing home, reserving for his remaining land a driveway easement and a right of way over a private way, and restricting the use of a portion of the new vacant lot. Specifically, the vacant lot was subject to a “buffer zone” restriction, which was to remain in effect for a period of 30 years from the date of the deed. The restriction also provided that the buffer zone was to be forever kept substantially in its natural vegetative state.

The defendants purchased the vacant lot at issue in 1985. The defendants constructed a house on the property, as well as a parking lot in the buffer zone, to which the grantor objected but took no further action. The grantor sold his adjacent property to the plaintiffs in 1993. In 1996, the plaintiffs made plans to raze the house on the property, and they approached the defendants to secure their agreement not to object to the construction of a new house. In a 1996 letter, the plaintiffs confirmed that agreement, and they also confirmed that the plaintiffs had no objection to the defendants’ use of the parking spaces within the easement area. Since 1996, the defendants have continued to install plantings in the buffer zone, added a retaining wall, and made improvements to the parking area and other parts of the buffer zone.

Massachusetts Land Court Rules on Issues of Adverse Possession and Prescriptive Easement

Published on: December 15, 2015 | by Pulgini & Norton, LLP

In Cappelluzzo v. Rinkoo-Tei Realty, LLC, (Mass. Land Ct. Dec. 11, 2015), the Massachusetts Land Court was presented with a property dispute involving a parcel of land between the boundaries of the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff lives next door to the defendant, which operates a restaurant and bar on its property. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant, seeking to establish his rights to a narrow parcel of land in the record ownership of the defendant. His claim was based on the theories of adverse possession or prescriptive easement. The plaintiff also sought a determination that the defendant was trespassing on his land. The defendant, in turn, filed a counter-claim against the plaintiff for trespass. After a trial, the land court found that the plaintiff failed to establish ownership by adverse possession but that he had established certain rights of easement by prescription.

In Massachusetts, title by adverse possession can be acquired by proof of non-permissive use that is actual, open, notorious, exclusive, and adverse, for a period of 20 years. The determination of whether an activity constitutes adverse possession is inherently fact-specific. The court must look to the nature of the occupancy in relation to the character of the land, the purposes for which it is adapted, and the uses to which it has been put. Acts of possession that are few, intermittent, and unclear do not constitute adverse possession.

Massachusetts Land Owners Establish Prescriptive Easement to Use Driveway on Neighbors’ Land

Published on: November 24, 2015 | by Pulgini & Norton, LLP

The Massachusetts Land Court decided an easement dispute between two neighbors regarding a dirt driveway in Dunning v. Larsen (Mass. Land Ct. Oct. 8, 2015). The plaintiffs brought suit against their neighbors, seeking to establish rights in a path that leads from a private way to their property. The dirt path at issue is entirely within the bounds of the defendants’ property and is not itself a private way.

The court first examined whether the plaintiffs had a record easement over the dirt path by looking to the history of the property and the deed description. The grantor of the plaintiffs’ property had no ownership in the defendants’ property at the time he conveyed the right of way for the benefit of the plaintiffs’ property. Therefore, he could not grant an easement over the dirt drive contained within the defendants’ property. The court thus found that the plaintiffs had no record easement to use the dirt drive and no right to maintain utilities under the drive pursuant to G.L. c. 187, § 5. As a result, only the defendants have the right to use the dirt drive, unless the plaintiffs have a prescriptive easement.

To establish a prescriptive easement, a party must prove open, notorious, adverse, and continuous or uninterrupted use of the servient estate for a period of not less than 20 years. In Dunning, the court held that the plaintiffs did hold a prescriptive easement in the dirt drive. The court noted that the drive has existed since 1950 and has been used by the plaintiffs openly, notoriously, adversely, and continuously to travel to and from their property by vehicle, by bicycle, and on foot. The court found that the plaintiffs’ use of the drive has been visible to the public as well as the defendants since 1977. In addition, the plaintiffs believed that they had a record easement to use the drive, and they did not ask for permission from the defendants to use it, indicating that their possession was adverse.

Massachusetts Court of Appeal Rules on Ownership and Easement Issue

Published on: November 10, 2015 | by Pulgini & Norton, LLP

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts reviewed a decision by the Land Court in a case involving the ownership and use of a private street. In Anarpet Realty Corp. v. Stutz Motor Car Co., 39 N.E.3d 472 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015), the property owner filed a complaint against several defendants, seeking a declaration of the rights of the parties and injunctive relief regarding the ownership and use of a private way. The Land Court found in favor of the defendants, ruling that the defendants’ lots included a fee interest to the private way as well as easement rights, and the easement wasn’t overburdened by the defendants. The plaintiff appealed, and the appeals court affirmed the lower court’s judgment regarding the issues pertaining to the private way.

In Massachusetts, when a grantor of land that borders a street conveys that land by a deed that describes the land as bordering the street, it is presumed that the grantor has conveyed the fee to the middle of the street. When lots are conveyed by a deed making reference to a plan, and the plan referred to in the deed shows the land as bounded on a street, this is equivalent to such a description in the deed, and the presumption becomes operative. However, this presumption is not an absolute rule of law, but merely a principle of interpretation adopted for the purpose of finding out the true meaning of the words used.

Massachusetts Land Court Analyzes Covenant Access Rights, Denies Summary Judgment in Property Dispute

Published on: November 3, 2015 | by Pulgini & Norton, LLP

The Massachusetts land court recently considered a motion for summary judgment in a real estate dispute between two neighbors regarding access to a neighboring lot. In the case of McAdams v. FitzMaurice (Oct. 6, 2015), the primary issue was whether the defendants have a right appurtenant to the title to their property to pass over a neighboring, undeveloped seaside lot in order to access the beach on the other side. The record owners of the lot, who live across from it, brought an action seeking a declaration as to the parties’ rights to pass over the lot, injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from crossing the lot, and money damages. The defendants responded with an assertion of their own right of passage to the lot.

The previous owners of the seaside lot, as well as the parties’ property, divided the land pursuant to a set of restrictive covenants. These covenants created conservation restrictions over the seaside lot for the purpose of preserving the premises as near to their natural state as possible. In addition, they expressly reserved a right for the grantors and successors in title “to pass and repass” over the seaside lot for the benefit of their property. The grantors’ property was eventually subdivided to become the current, respective properties of the plaintiffs and defendants. In their suit, the plaintiffs claim that this passage right is appurtenant only to their property, while the defendants contend that both owners have the same right to pass over the lot and benefit from it.

Massachusetts Court of Appeals Rules for Plaintiffs in Adverse Possession of Woodlands

Published on: September 25, 2015 | by Pulgini & Norton, LLP

In a recently published opinion, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals examined the law of adverse possession and color of title claims in a property dispute surrounding natural, wild lands. In Paine v. Sexton, the plaintiffs sought to register nearly 36 acres of woodlands, based on adverse possession. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs could not establish adverse possession when they had not enclosed or cultivated the natural areas, and they also contended that the deed under which they claimed color of title did not have an adequate description to support their claim. The appeals court affirmed the decision of the trial court finding in favor of the plaintiffs.

Adverse Possession

In Paine v. Sexton, the plaintiffs had operated a commercial campground on the land since 1958. Although they had cleared campsites and added picnic tables, built an office building and bathroom facilities, erected some fencing, and made other improvements to the area, they did not enclose or cultivate the entire 36 acres in order to maintain privacy between campsites, as well as to preserve the naturally wooded condition of the grounds.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts Decides Easement Issue in Neighbors’ Dispute

Published on: September 4, 2015 | by Pulgini & Norton, LLP

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals recently ruled on a property dispute between neighboring landowners regarding their use and enjoyment of an easement. In Burke v. Spalenza, No. 14-P-594, (Mass. App. Ct. Sept. 2, 2015), the dispute arose when the defendants began parking their large utility vehicle in a manner that prevented the plaintiffs from accessing their property through a shared driveway.

The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment from the Massachusetts Land Court to determine the location, scope, and dimensions of the easement they claimed to hold by title, or in the alternative, find that they possess a prescriptive easement. The Land Court issued a judgment declaring that the parties are bound by an easement through the defendants’ property to the plaintiffs’ property, and it adopted a plan submitted by the plaintiffs depicting the scope and location of the driveway. The defendants subsequently appealed the Land Court’s decision.

Massachusetts Appeals Court Affirms Finding of Abandoned Easement

Published on: June 10, 2015 | by Pulgini & Norton, LLP

In a recent real estate case, Siebecker v. Orefice, Mass. App. Ct. (2015), the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled on an appeal stemming from a lower court decision regarding an easement. The lower court found that the defendant’s right to an easement was both extinguished and abandoned, from which the defendant appealed.

The Appeals Court found that there was no evidence that the defendant had used the easement in any way, either by the defendant or her predecessors for the entire 101 years of the easement over the plaintiff’s property. In this case, however, there was additional acquiescence in regards to the plaintiffs’ conduct on the disputed area, which the trial court judge combined with the nonuse to support the finding of an intent to abandon. The Appeals Court then cited to the rule that a failure to protest acts that are inconsistent with the existence of an easement, especially when one is aware of the right to use the easement, can permit an interference of abandonment.

Regarding the trial court judge’s finding that the easement was extinguished, the Appeals Court found that the factual findings regarding the effect of the plaintiffs’ use of the property was adequately supported.

Appeals Court Rules: What Creates a Legally Enforceable Easement under Massachusetts Law?

Published on: February 23, 2015 | by Pulgini & Norton, LLP

Easements are one reason why it’s a good idea to have an experienced Massachusetts real estate lawyer on your side throughout the entirety of your home purchasing process. If there are any encumbrances on the property you are intending to buy, you’ll want to know sooner rather than later.

In Perillo v. Knight, a case before the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, at issue was the existence of a valid legal easement. Although it was not mentioned in the facts of the case as discussed, the probable circumstances under which this arose was a homeowner wishing to somehow alter their property and then perhaps beginning the process, only to find that there was an encumbrance on the property. Easements run with the land, meaning that even after a home is sold, they must legally be honored by the subsequent landowner, and they are subject to enforcement in court.