Athanasiou v. Board of Selectmen of Westhampton, AC 15-P-0894

Plaintiffs Louanne and George Athanasiou own a triangular parcel (the "triangle") abutted by North Road and Southampton Road, with an unnamed paved cut-through (the "way") forming its base.
The way has been open to and used by the public for more than twenty years; it is two-way and provides a public connection between the roads.
The Town of Westhampton has maintained the way continuously for over twenty years: plowing, sanding, oiling/graveling (early 1990s and ~2005), patching, pruning, tree/brush removal, and about 20 winter maintenance operations per year.
The town also installed and has cleared/maintained a drainage system (including a swale) on the triangle, and has mowed, removed dead trees, and planted trees there; the town has assessed no taxes on the disputed area.
Plaintiffs sued in Land Court seeking a declaration of fee ownership; defendants counterclaimed that the town acquired a prescriptive easement. The Land Court granted summary judgment to defendants on the counterclaim; plaintiffs appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether public use was open, continuous, and notorious for 20+ years	Athanasiou: use was sporadic, not continuous; traffic study needed	Town: public used the way continuously for over 20 years; record evidence shows uninterrupted use	Court: use was continuous, open, and notorious for statutory period — supports prescriptive easement
Whether town exercised corporate dominion and control (authorized acts)	Athanasiou: town maintenance evidence insufficient; no town vote authorizing expenditures	Town: highway superintendent and employees performed regular maintenance and improvements, showing authorized corporate action	Court: undisputed maintenance (plowing, sanding, patching, drainage work, tree removal) shows corporate dominion and control — suffices for prescription
Whether use was permissive or constitutes a taking requiring compensation	Athanasiou: single family recollection of permissive use; taking claim raised	Town: no admissible evidence of permissive use; taking not adjudicated below	Court: plaintiffs offered no admissible evidence of permissive use to create a triable issue; takings claim not reached here

Daley v. Swampscott, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 822 (1981) (elements for municipal prescriptive easement: open, continuous, notorious use for 20 years and corporate dominion/control via authorized acts)
White v. Hartigan, 464 Mass. 400 (2013) (continuous adverse use standard for prescription)
Boothroyd v. Bogartz, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 40 (2007) (use must not be concealed; owner’s knowledge relevant)
Rivers v. Warwick, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 593 (1994) (occasional municipal maintenance may be insufficient to prove public prescriptive use)
McLaughlin v. Marblehead, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 490 (2007) (absence of construction or maintenance during period defeats corporate-action element)
Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mass. 117 (1991) (summary judgment standard)
Pugsley v. Police Dept. of Boston, 472 Mass. 367 (2015) (appellate review of summary judgment: view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)