The ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus observed that nothing is permanent except change. His maxim is particularly fitting to Massachusetts law affecting easements.
Easements allow the owner of one property (the dominant estate) to use another property (the servient estate) for specific purposes, such as access or utility lines. Many easements were established decades ago, with little thought about future development of the servient estate. As time passes and demographics change, the servient estate may become ripe for development, but new construction is impractical without relocating the easement.
Before 2000, Massachusetts courts prevented owners of servient estates from relocating easements without consent from easement owners, enabling easement owners to thwart development on servient estates, or to condition their consent on financial accommodations. The economic value of servient estates was unnecessarily diminished. In 2000, legal scholars at the American Law Institute proposed modernizing this rule, so that owners of servient estates could unilaterally relocate easements, as long as the easement does not specifically prohibit relocation and the change will not impair the easement, burden its owner or frustrate its purposes. The ALI’s proposal sought to maximize the servient estate’s utility, while preserving the dominant estate’s value. Colorado’s courts were among the first to embrace this view in 2001. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court followed in 2004, in M.P.M. Builders, L.L.C. v. Dwyer.
M.P.M. Builders secured permits for a subdivision, but an abutter’s access easement stymied development. The abutter rejected M.P.M.’s offer to move the easement to a convenient location. M.P.M. brought suit in Land Court, but lost. Although sympathetic to M.P.M., the Land Court followed earlier Massachusetts court decisions and ruled in the abutter’s favor. M.P.M. appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, which overturned the Land Court, adopted the ALI’s proposal, and allowed M.P.M. to relocate the easement in a reasonable manner. The SJC’s decision changed Massachusetts easement law, giving hope to developers frustrated by troublesome easements held by uncooperative abutters.
Last month, the SJC issued another noteworthy decision on easement modifications in Martin v. Simmons Properties LLC. Clifford Martin owned a 30-foot-wide access easement over neighboring property. The size and location of the easement was delineated on a registered Land Court plan. Martin’s neighbor narrowed the easement by constructing improvements on it and adding fill. Although Martin’s easement remained fully usable as a practical matter, he sued his neighbor to restore the easement to the 30-foot-wide boundaries shown on the Land Court plan. He argued that despite the SJC’s decision in M.P.M. Builders, the neighbor could not unilaterally narrow an easement depicted on a registered Land Court plan. The Land Court disagreed with Martin and ruled for the neighbor, but the Appeals Court overruled the Land Court, holding that the neighbor could not unilaterally change an easement shown on a registered plan. The neighbor appealed to the SJC.
The SJC confirmed and expounded upon its decision in M.P.M. Builders, ruling that whether or not easements are shown on registered plans is irrelevant. According to the SJC, the overriding issue is whether the narrower easement materially impaired Martin’s access. Martin conceded that the change caused no adverse impact. Therefore, the SJC ruled that Martin could not force his neighbor to restore the easement to its original dimensions.
The SJC’s approach to easement rights exemplifies how economics, pragmatic thinking, and scholarly opinion can influence judges to rewrite laws, without legislative action. The Massachusetts judiciary is particularly open to such creativity.
Christopher R. Vaccaro is a partner at Looney & Grossman LLP in Boston. His email address is cvaccaro@lgllp.com.
