With spring’s arrival, Massachusetts residents anticipate warmer weather and visits to favorite beaches. Some of those visits result in quarrels between private beach owners and people seeking beach access. Martha’s Vineyard has had more than its share of these disputes, and is the setting of a case decided by the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in February involving a beach lost to erosion.
White v. Hartigan is a lawsuit about a 1.7-mile pristine beach in southern Edgartown. The coastline there erodes dramatically, and the beach once owned by the plaintiffs is entirely submerged beneath the Atlantic Ocean. The plaintiffs filed suit in Land Court, seeking a judgment that they own the existing beach, which was formerly upland. They also advanced an alternative claim that even if they did not own the existing beach, they had a prescriptive easement because they had used it without permission for more than 20 years. The Land Court ruled against the plaintiffs, who appealed to the SJC.
The SJC’s decision discusses the property’s complicated chain of title, beginning with the “Squaw Sachim” Wonnottaqunnamon’s conveyance to Capt. John Butler in 1693. By the early 20th century, the property was essentially owned by two extended families, the Nortons and the Flynns. North Atlantic waves and weather pummeled the shore, and by 1938, the Nortons’ entire beach was lost, and the Flynns’ formerly upland property became the shoreline. The Nortons and Flynns coexisted amicably for years under their respective patriarchs, and the Nortons used the Flynns’ beach without rancor.
The peace ended when the patriarchs passed on, and the Nortons sold parcels with purported beach rights. The Flynns questioned these rights, but acquiesced until a purchaser insisted on riding his horse across the Flynns’ property despite the Nortons’ and Flynns’ objections. The Flynns then challenged the Nortons’ beach rights.
The Nortons claimed that the upland boundary of their land shifted inland as the beach eroded, so that the Nortons now own the Flynns’ beach.
Shifting Tides
The SJC disagreed. The court noted that shoreline boundaries are not fixed, and change because of natural forces. In contrast, upland boundaries are fixed. If sand is deposited on the beach, shoreline properties grow, but if the beach erodes, the properties shrink.
When an entire beach parcel is lost to erosion, it ceases to exist. The court recognized the equitable principal that a beachfront owner who benefits when sand is deposited on the property, suffers adverse consequences when the property erodes. Therefore, the Nortons had no ownership claim to the Flynns’ beach.
On the prescriptive easement claim, the court ruled that the lower court’s decision against the Nortons lacked sufficient findings. The court vacated the judgment on the easement claim, and returned the case to the Land Court for further proceedings on that claim alone. The Nortons have another chance to argue for their easement, but their likelihood of success remains doubtful.
Waterfront owners already know that the ocean is a thoughtless neighbor. After White v. Hartigan, they should also know that courts offer little help when the North Atlantic takes their land.
Christopher R. Vaccaro is an attorney in Stoneham. Email: cvaccaro @verizon.net
