Perry v. Aiello
AC 16-P-1309
| Mass. App. Ct. | Sep 19, 2017Background
- Parties: King's Chapel trustees (owners of 63-64 Beacon St.) and 66 Beacon St., LLC (plaintiffs) vs. DeLuca owners/operators of DeLuca's Market (defendants) over use of a 10-foot-wide passageway between their properties in Beacon Hill, Boston.
- Title/configuration: Each abutter owns fee simple to the center line of the passageway adjacent to its lot; historically common rights of passage existed over the remainder.
- 1947 agreement: Contract among predecessors limited DeLuca's use of the passageway to travel by foot and hand carts and expressly excluded garbage receptacles; it stated restrictions were appurtenant and binding on successors and that no other rights would be appurtenant to the DeLuca parcel.
- Use facts: Since at least 2000 DeLuca parked vehicles and occasionally allowed service workers to park in the way; since 2013 DeLuca has regularly backed a truck in to load trash for off-site removal.
- Procedural posture: Land Court found paragraph 2 of the 1947 agreement created an affirmative easement enforceable against the plaintiffs' portions of the way, held the statutory restriction on DeLuca's owned portion had expired, rejected prescriptive parking easement, and allowed a once-daily brief truck stop to load trash. Appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1947 provisions are enforceable restrictions subject to G. L. c. 184 (statutory expiration) or are easements not subject to § 28 | The 1947 terms created easements (paragraph 2 is appurtenant) that survive § 28 and remain enforceable | The agreement imposed restrictions on DeLuca's prior common-law rights and thus is subject to c.184 § 28 time limits | The court held the 1947 terms are restrictions under c.184 and expired after fifty years; reversed the portion enforcing paragraph 2 as an ongoing limitation |
| Scope of current rights to use the passageway (parking, stopping, loading) | Plaintiffs: no parking; limited passage only per original terms | Defendants: parking/use by prescription and practical needs (trash loading) | Court held no right to park in the passageway; brief once-daily truck stop to load trash allowed so long as it does not unreasonably impede easements |
| Whether defendants obtained a prescriptive easement to park in the passageway | Plaintiffs: no prescriptive right existed | Defendants: long, open, continuous parking/use created a prescriptive parking easement | Court affirmed Land Court: defendants failed to prove prescriptive easement; finding not clearly erroneous |
| Whether restrictions in the 1947 agreement apply differently to portions of the way owned by different parties | Plaintiffs: agreement affects entire passageway; restrictions remain appurtenant | Defendants: restriction on DeLuca-owned portion expired, but paragraph 2 granted easement over plaintiffs' portions | Court held the agreement did not create separable easements for plaintiffs' portions; restrictions covered the entire way and expired under § 28 |
Key Cases Cited
- Labounty v. Vickers, 352 Mass. 337 (discusses meaning of "restriction on the use of land")
- Patterson v. Paul, 448 Mass. 658 (distinguishes affirmative easements from restrictions for § 23/§ 26 purposes)
- Tehan v. Security Natl. Bank of Springfield, 340 Mass. 176 (ownership to center of way and common passage rights)
- Murphy v. Mart Realty of Brockton, Inc., 348 Mass. 675 (rights of abutters over ways and passage usage)
- Stop & Shop Supermkt. Co. v. Urstadt Biddle Props., Inc., 433 Mass. 285 (policy disfavouring long-term restrictions and statutory removal procedures)
- Martin v. Simmons Props., LLC, 467 Mass. 1 (definition and effect of easements vs. possessory rights)
- Myers v. Salin, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 127 (scope of G. L. c. 184 §§ 23, 26-30 and treatment of restrictions regardless of labels)
- Brown v. Sneider, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 329 (standards for prescriptive easement findings)
- Shapiro v. Burton, 23 Mass. App. Ct. 327 (prescriptive easement proof and appellate review of credibility-based findings)