Martin v. Simmons Properties, LLC, 467 Mass. 1

Martin owns lot 3A (registered land) with an easement over Way A and other easements via the Land Court plan; Way A connects Boston Avenue to the railroad and has variable width (28 feet at entry, not less than 19 feet along its length).
Simmons Properties acquired adjacent parcels (lots 4A, 10, 12) in 1993 and made improvements that encroached into Way A (curbing, landscaping, depressions, parking, and grading changes).
Martin sued in Land Court in 2007 for encroachments and interference with his easement rights, including actions affecting Way A, Way E, and related storm drain, sewer, sprinkler, and water easements.
The Land Court judge found Way A functions adequately for current use, and that encroachments did not impair Martin’s easement; Martin appealed, and the Appeals Court reversed in part, leading to Supreme Judicial Court review.
The central issue is whether, under Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 4.8(3) adopted in M.P.M. Builders, the servient estate owner may reasonably change the location or dimensions of an easement so long as the easement’s purpose is served and the easement’s utility is not significantly lessened.
The Court holds there is no meaningful distinction between easements on registered vs recorded land for this analysis and affirms that the easement width may be reduced where the unobstructed width remains adequate for travel and the easement’s purpose is not frustrated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a servient owner may reduce easement width under Restatement §4.8(3).	Martin contends Way A must be used at full width as shown on the J-Plan (registered land).	Simmons may narrow the width if the easement’s purpose remains achievable.	Yes; width may be reduced if utility remains and purpose isn’t frustrated.
Whether registered-land easements differ from recorded-land easements in this analysis.	Martin argues Plan-based width is immutable for registered land.	No principled distinction; Restatement governs both.	No principled distinction; same analysis applies.
Whether encroachments in Way A impede the easement’s purpose.	Encroachments reduce the usable width and burden Martin’s access.	Current unobstructed width remains adequate for travel.	Encroachments do not materially interfere; easement remains functional.
Whether the unhatched area constitutes an easement for travel.	Martin asserts right of way over unhatched area based on historic use.	Unhatched area not shown on plan; no mutual mistake or easement.	No easement over unhatched area; rights limited to shown Ways A, B, C, D, E.
Whether Way E easement has been extinguished or abandoned.	Simmons argues Way E extinguished by nonuse of raised platform.	Nonuse alone does not extinguish on registered land; platform no longer exists.	Way E remains in effect; not extinguished by abandonment.

M.P.M. Builders, LLC v. Dwyer, 442 Mass. 87 (Mass. 2004) (adopts Restatement § 4.8(3) balancing approach to easements)
Goldstein v. Beal, 317 Mass. 750 (Mass. 1945) (treats plan effects on easements in registered land and recorded land alike)
Johnson v. Kinnicutt, 2 Cush. 153 (Mass. 1848) (conveys broad right of way often limited to convenient passage)
New York Cent. R.R. v. Ayer, 239 Mass. 70 (Mass. 1921) (when width defined, entire passageway intended; not merely convenient part)
Be Beaudoin v. Sino-dinos, 313 Mass. 511 (Mass. 1943) (language describing entire private way; governs easement extent)