White v. Hartigan
464 Mass. 400
| Mass. | 2013Background
- Two families, Nortons and Flynns, dispute title and use rights to a 1.7 mile beach in Edgartown on Martha’s Vineyard.
- Nortons claim a fractional title or prescriptive rights to beach access; Flynns contest any title to the current beach location.
- 1851–1938 erosion submerged the original beach; current beach location sits on land once upland (Paqua, Pohogonot, etc.).
- 1841 deed created a distinct beach parcel; subsequent conveyances trace title to the Norton and Flynn lines, respectively.
- Land Court granted summary judgment for the Flynns on the title claim since the Nortons hold a fixed boundary in 1841 that no longer encroaches on the present beach; Nortons’ prescriptive easement claim proceeded to trial but the judge found insufficient open/notorious use and 20-year adverse-use period.
- Court remanded for further findings on prescriptive easement elements and left intact the title ruling in favor of the Flynns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Norton title extend to the beach as currently located? | Norton predecessors created a moveable boundary tied to beach migration. | Beachdelineated boundary fixed; erosion shifted upland boundary; no moveable parcel. | Norton title to current beach location rejected; title is fixed to the 1841 beach parcel, now submerged. |
| Can the Nortons prove a moveable landward boundary that tracks beach migration? | Deed describes northern boundary with natural monuments, implying movability. | Northern boundary described by natural monuments does not prove movability; surrounding attendant circumstances indicate fixed boundary. | Moveable boundary not recognized; boundary fixed absent clear language showing movability. |
| Did the Nortons establish a valid prescriptive easement to use the beach? | Use since 1938 under a claim of right; adverse, open and notorious for 20+ years. | Use was permissive; evidentiary findings inadequate; lack of clear, detailed subsidiary findings on key elements. | Factual findings insufficient for prescriptive easement; remand for more detailed findings. |
| Does repeal of G. L. c. 260, § 23 (1979) retroactively affect the prescriptive claim against remaindermen? | Repeal permits earlier accrual against remaindermen; period could predate 1979. | Statute is procedural; retroactivity should be limited; effects depend on existing rights. | Repeal applies retroactively; prescriptive claim not time-barred against remaindermen; denial of partial summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Lakeman, 15 Pick. 151 (1833) (moveable boundary not recognized without explicit intent)
- Marvel v. Regienus, 329 Mass. 414 (1952) (boundaries may use natural monuments as boundaries when fixed to land at deed time)
- Gadreault v. Hillman, 317 Mass. 656 (1945) (prescriptive elements and burden on plaintiffs in large undeveloped tracts)
- Lorusso v. Acapesket Improvement Ass’n, 408 Mass. 772 (1990) (littoral boundaries typically fixed notwithstanding shoreline movement)
- Temple v. Benson, 213 Mass. 128 (1912) (natural monuments as boundaries must reflect land at time of deed)
- Phillips v. Rhodes, 7 Met. 322 (1843) (early coastal boundary doctrine; movability not presumed)