49 N.E.3d 198
Mass.2016Background
- In 1878 probate-appointed commissioners partitioned ~2,400 acres of Gay Head (Aquinnah) common land into >500 lots for individual tribal members; most deeds omitted express access easements, leaving many lots landlocked.
- At the time the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head governed local land use by custom allowing tribe members free access across common and severalty lands.
- Plaintiffs (owners of several partitioned lots created from the common land) sued in 1997 seeking easements by necessity implied from the 1878 partition.
- Appeals Court held only lots numbered 189 and above (created from common land) could show unity of title necessary for an easement-by-necessity presumption; remanded to Land Court to decide intent and scope.
- Land Court (on documentary record) found defendants rebutted the presumption of intent to create access easements based on tribal custom, specific reservations/grants in some deeds, and the poor condition/use of the land at partition.
- Supreme Judicial Court affirmed: plaintiffs failed to prove commissioners intended to create easements by necessity; did not reopen prior holding excluding lot 178 under law-of-the-case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether easements by necessity were created by the 1878 partition | Partition implicitly intended to grant access rights so lots would be salable and usable after enfranchisement | Commissioners knew tribal custom provided access, reserved other rights in some deeds, and land condition made access easements unnecessary; evidence rebuts presumption | No easements by necessity; defendants met burden to rebut presumption |
| Whether plaintiffs satisfied elements for presumption of easement by necessity (unity, severance, contemporaneous necessity) | Plaintiffs asserted unity and severance existed for lots 189+ and that lots became landlocked at partition | Defendants disputed contemporaneous necessity given preexisting tribal access and other circumstances | Court assumed elements met for purpose of analysis but treated contemporaneous necessity as rebuttable and rejected on facts |
| Whether omission of access easements was inadvertent or intentional | Omission frustrated Legislature’s purpose to make individual titles usable | Commissioners’ inclusion of other specific reservations/access grants shows knowledge and intentional omission of general access easements | Omission inferred intentional; express reservations support rebuttal of presumption |
| Whether lot 178 should be reopened for remand despite prior Appeals Court ruling | Plaintiffs urged reconsideration to include lot 178 | Defendants relied on law-of-the-case from Kitras I excluding lot 178 | Court applied law-of-the-case and refused to reopen issue; lot 178 remains excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Orpin v. Morrison, 230 Mass. 529 (presumption that a conveyance rendering land inaccessible includes a right of way; presumption strictly construed)
- Richards v. Attleborough Branch R.R. Co., 153 Mass. 120 (no easement created by public policy to remedy purchaser’s lack of access)
- Kitras v. Aquinnah, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 285 (Appeals Court decision identifying lots 189+ as subject to unity of title and remanding for intent/scope)
- Mt. Holyoke Realty Corp. v. Holyoke Realty Corp., 284 Mass. 100 (burden on party claiming implied easement to show intent)
- Viall v. Carpenter, 14 Gray 126 (necessity must exist at time of division)
- Davis v. Sikes, 254 Mass. 540 (factors for inferring intent to create implied easement)
- Bedford v. Cerasuolo, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 73 (discussion of easement-by-necessity elements and presumption)