You want to purchase a piece of property. As you review the deed and legal description of the property, you discover that someone else has the right to use a portion of it. Easements are fairly common, but that does not mean that you shouldn't review them to determine how they will affect your use of the property.
Massachusetts contains thousands of private streets and ways; on and along those ways innumerable residents of this Commonwealth live. We know that the Derelict Fee Statute operates to resolve ownership questions regarding these private ways. However, the "statute pertains only to the question of ownership of the fee [in a private way]"; it does not govern use, maintenance, or other rights and/or obligations over a way, which, for the purposes of this blog post, fall within the province of the common law of easements. Adams v. Planning Bd. of Westwood, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 383, 389 (2005).
Utility easements are something most business owners probably do not even think about until it affects their site planning and development. Suddenly, they find themselves wondering not only what a utility easement is, but also how to circumnavigate the restrictions that come with these easements.
A few weeks ago, the Appeals Court issued a decision that potentially affects several landlocked parcels in Aquinnah (Gay Head) on Martha's Vineyard. As a result of this decision (Kitras v. Town of Aquinnah, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 10 (2015)), which reversed and remanded a Land Court decision/judgment, these landlocked parcels have been deemed to have easement rights that have been in dispute for some time. Or at least that's what the majority opinion decided. There was a stong dissent written by Associate Justice Peter W. Agnes.
Initially, this post was going to be about the substantive portions of the disputed claims in Perry v. Nemira, 2015 WL 179045, 11 MISC 457157 (AHS) (Mass. Land Ct. Jan. 15, 2015), which focused primarily on claims of right via prescriptive easements and adverse possession. In a word, the decision is lengthy (mostly due to the various chains of title that must be parsed out) and hard to condense into a neat little blog post.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) confirmed that its move away from the common law requirement of mutual consent for easement relocation was broad and included the ability to alter not only the location but the dimensions of easements. The SJC's decision in Martin v. Simmons Properties, LLC, on January 16, 2014 presented the SJC with its first chance to elaborate upon and expand its prior holding in M.P.M. Builders, LLC v. Dwyer, 442 Mass. 87, 809 N.E.2d 1053 (2004), discussed in detail in my article on developments in the eight years since the M.P.M. Builders decision.
Landowners who purchase and combine multiple, adjoining lots can sometimes find themselves in a quandary if there is an existing easement that benefits only one of those lots. To illustrate, picture three adjacent lots: A, B, and C. When these lots were initially created, an easement was created on Lot A so that the owner of Lot B could access his lot. There was no similar easement created for Lot C at that time.
We normally don't post news items from outside Massachusetts, but this ongoing saga is just too interesting that we had to share. Plus, considering it's summer, it just makes for good "beach" reading.
The age of Massachusetts lends itself well to preservation easements. These kinds of easements, also referred to as preservation restrictions, create tax and other benefits for owners of historic properties in exchange for certain restrictions that will protect and preserve the historical and architectural significance of relevant structures and/or landscape features.
On February 8, 2013, the Supreme Judicial Court another land use/real estate decision in White v. Hartigan, 464 Mass. 400 (2013), a case on direct appellate review from the Land Court. At issue in the case (a quiet title action) was whether the plaintiffs owned a fractional interest in a beach located on Martha's Vineyard, or, alternatively, whether they had acquired a prescriptive easement to use the beach and the land leading thereto.