Brown v. Kalicki, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 534

Plaintiffs own three riparian parcels on Davis Lane in Harwich registered in the 1920s–1930s; those parcels have since accreted substantial formerly submerged land on Nantucket Sound.
Plaintiffs filed supplemental (S-) petitions in Land Court seeking to amend certificates of title to reflect sidelines and mean high/low water marks for the accreted beach areas.
Local residents Kalicki and Hershey intervened and asserted prescriptive easements for longstanding open use of the new beach area; Commonwealth and town initially objected but later withdrew after settlements and stipulations protecting public tideland rights.
The Land Court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs, holding that accretions to registered littoral land automatically acquire registered status as they form and therefore are not subject to prescriptive easements under G. L. c. 185, § 53.
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, relying on prior Land Court reasoning and policies favoring stability and indefeasibility of registered titles; a single justice dissented, arguing that land becomes registered only through formal in rem registration proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether accretions to registered littoral land automatically acquire registered status as they form	Accreted land becomes part of registered parcel on creation; registration protections (including bar to prescription) apply immediately	Accreted land was formerly submerged and not part of original registration; it cannot be "registered" until an S-petition in rem amends the certificate of title	Yes. Court held accretions automatically become registered as formed and are protected from prescriptive easement claims
Whether interveners could acquire prescriptive easements in the newly accreted beachfront	Plaintiffs: statute bars prescriptive rights against registered land, so interveners’ claims fail	Interveners: prescriptive rights accrued while land was unregistered; protections arise only after formal amendment of certification	No. Because accretions are treated as registered, prescriptive claims were barred; judgment for plaintiffs affirmed

Lorusso v. Acapesket Improvement Assn., Inc., 408 Mass. 772 (1990) (describes equitable division among littoral owners for simultaneous accretions)
Michaelson v. Silver Beach Improvement Assn., Inc., 342 Mass. 251 (1961) (littoral owner gains accretions unless caused by owner; public rights between high/low water line remain)
White v. Hartigan, 464 Mass. 400 (2013) (describes rule that littoral boundary follows shifting water line and summary judgment standard)
Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 175 Mass. 71 (1900) (land registration is an in rem proceeding)
Arno v. Commonwealth, 457 Mass. 434 (2010) (addressed public rights in former Commonwealth tidelands)
Allen v. Wood, 256 Mass. 343 (1926) (definition and treatment of accretion)
Pazolt v. Director of the Div. of Marine Fisheries, 417 Mass. 565 (1994) (public fishing/navigation/fowling rights in tidelands)
Kozdras v. Land/Vest Properties, Inc., 382 Mass. 34 (1980) (describing uncertainty in the ordinary recording system)
Batchelder v. Planning Bd. of Yarmouth, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 104 (1991) (state of title does not change until registration proceeding complete)