In a recent major real estate law ruling, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) extended owners of registered land the same flexibility that owners of unregistered land have to defend easement claims.
The SJC decision in Martin v. Simmons Properties LLC upholds a 2011 Land Court ruling that allowed a property owner to make improvements on a right of way easement on a registered land parcel that a neighboring owner of registered land claimed interfered with his deeded easement rights.
Massachusetts is one of fewer than a dozen states with a limited implementation of the 19th century Australian “Torrens Act,” a land registration system. Land registration provides a certainty in ownership and legal descriptions. The registration process involves a legal procedure in which a certificate of title is issued by a Land Court title examiner.
About 15 to 20 percent of property in Massachusetts is registered land. Non-registered land is referred to as recorded land.
Clifford Martin owns a vacant lot of registered land in an industrial/commercial subdivision on the Medford–Somerville line. The lot has no frontage on a public way, but is accessible via a right of way easement on property owned by Simmons Properties, which easement is noted on the certificate of registration issued by the Land Court for Martin’s property.
In 1993, Simmons Properties made several improvements to its properties in the subdivision, including installing a loading dock, a parking deck and stairwell, and parking spaces, along with curbing and landscaping. All of the improvements protruded in some way onto the easement.
Martin filed suit in 2007, alleging interference by Simmons with his right of access to the easement.
The Land Court ruled in favor of Simmons, holding that although Simmons had made certain encroachments, the right of way was still wide enough for its intended purpose of access.
Martin appealed, and the commonwealth’s Appeals Court reversed significant portions of the Land Court decision. Because Martin’s parcel is held under a Land Court certificate of registration, the Appeals Court stated, “the dimensions of all easements appurtenant to it … are immutable, and Martin has a right of access over the full width of [the easement].”
The SJC disagreed, however, and reiterated the Land Court judge’s finding that there is “no principled distinction between easements on registered land and easements on unrecorded land … ”
‘No Additional Property Rights For Registered Land Holders’
The court’s decision in this case reinforces what it described in its 2004 M.P.M Builders’ ruling as a “balanced” approach in the law of easements, which maximizes the value of property to the owner of a servient estate (the landowner on whose property the easement is located), while protecting the rights of an easement holder.
In its earlier decision, the SJC adopted into law a rule regarding easement modifications, which states: “Unless expressly denied by the terms of an easement … the owner of the servient estate is entitled to make reasonable changes in the location or dimensions of an easement, at the servient owner’s expense, to permit normal use or development of the servient estate, but only if the changes do not (a) significantly lessen the utility of the easement, (b) increase the burdens on the owner of the easement in its use and enjoyment, or (c) frustrate the purpose for which the easement was created.”
And even though the dispute in Martin v. Simmons Properties involved registered land, the court said: “We discern nothing in the land registration act … to support a different understanding of the law of easements concerning registered land as opposed to recorded land … The act states explicitly that an ‘owner of registered land may convey, mortgage, lease, change or otherwise deal with it as fully as if it had not been registered.’”
The SJC further opined that the land registration act provides that when land is registered the transfer certificate of title shall set forth all easements to which the land is subject but otherwise creates no property rights distinct from or in addition to those accorded any owner of real property.
It is a recognized principle that easements create only a non-possessory interest in land and the benefit of such easements should be construed in a limited fashion relating only to the particular purpose of such easements. The right of way, as currently configured, “is a more than adequate opening, and Martin does not appear to disagree, conceding that there has never been any impact on his ability to use [the right of way] in this area … for passage to and from his land,” the court noted.
“As they exist today, and given Martin’s current use of his property, the encroachments into [the right of way] do not lessen its utility for vehicles much larger than any in existence when the way was created, do not increase the burden on Martin in his use of the way, and do not frustrate the purpose of travel to Martin’s lot, ” the SJC concluded.
As the SJC addresses other registered land cases, it will be interesting to see whether Martin v. Simmons Properties represents a trend to limit the advantages of registered land, or merely reflects the court’s concern that easements not unduly burden the development of land, regardless of its registered or unregistered status.
Ashley Brooks is an associate in the real estate department of Sullivan & Worcester’s Boston office. Email: abrooks@sandw.com
