Articles Posted in Title and Ownership

Published on:

Individuals seeking to improve a private road will generally need the consent of the owner, even if they have some property rights to use the road.  In a December 4, 2018 Massachusetts real estate case, the plaintiffs initiated legal action against the defendant in Land Court after he refused to allow them to pave the sole road providing access to the parties’ homes.  The defendant did not dispute that the plaintiffs held some type of an easement to use the road; however, he argued that they did not have the right to pave the road over his objection.

The parties owned seasonal homes on a secluded peninsula, which were accessible via one gravel-surfaced, private roadway.  The defendant was the fee owner of the gravel road, which was located on his property.  The roadway led to the plaintiffs’ house and continued past the defendant’s own house, serving a total of ten homes on the peninsula.  The plaintiffs wished to pave the road for easier travel and less damage to their vehicles, and because they believed it was a reasonable improvement.  The defendant believed that paving the road was unnecessary, and argued that doing so would worsen the road drainage problems, lead to non-residents’ use of the private road, allow cars to drive faster through the area, and overall change the feel of the small neighborhood.

Following a trial, the Land Court found that the plaintiffs had a prescriptive easement.  Their prescriptive easement was created by continued use of the road for the required statutory period.  Accordingly, the extent of their easement was limited to the use through which it was created, i.e., travel to and from their house.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Surveying historical boundaries of lands in Massachusetts can be a complex task.  It may require searching and deciphering markings, monuments, and records that are many years old.  In a November 5, 2018 Massachusetts property case, the Land Court faced several obstacles as it attempted to determine an accurate boundary line between two parcels of land.  The case originated when the plaintiff, seeking to resolve the question, filed an action to try and quiet title against the owners of the adjacent parcel.  The defendants, in turn, filed multiple counter-claims against the plaintiff.  The parties ultimately agreed to narrow their dispute into a single issue to be decided at trial, namely, the boundary between the properties.

The lands had been previously owned by two brothers, who had inherited them in 1942 as a large, single tract of property.  In 1961, the brothers divided their lands into two parcels, which became the lands currently owned by the parties in the case.  The brothers decided to skip the expense of a surveyor, however, and described the boundary line between their lands themselves, using monuments and markers.  In particular, the brothers referenced an old road marked by pipes and stones, a brook that had disappeared long before 1961, a bridge that no longer existed, and a heap of stones on a ledge of a ravine.

In order to determine the entire boundary between the formerly unified lands, the Land Court needed to find the exact locations of the ill-defined monuments described in deed.  To identify the location of the old road, the court reviewed a plan prepared by a surveyor in 2013.  The court concluded that the plan accurately depicted the road, noting that its location corresponded with maps from 1980 and 1986.  Although the maps were not professionally surveyed, they were prepared pursuant to state regulations for the plaintiff to submit a state-mandated forest management plan.  The bridge and brook were located by a geotechnical engineer and found to be consistent with the defendant’s testimony about statements that the prior owner made concerning the property line.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Acquiring legal title to real property can be complex, particularly if the land is old or abandoned.  In unusual situations, the knowledge of a Massachusetts real estate attorney may be beneficial to achieve your goals.  In an October 26, 2018 case, the plaintiffs sought to obtain title to the vacant, residential lot next to their property.  Current ownership of the vacant lot was unclear, as the owner named in the 1903 deed had died long ago.  The plaintiffs, however, succeeded in acquiring a 25% share of the property.  They then filed a petition in Land Court seeking a partition of the lot, naming 47 respondents who were or could be the heirs, devisees, or other successors in interest to the late owner.

Under Massachusetts law, any person, except a tenant by the entirety, owning an undivided legal estate in the land may seek a partition, with a presumption that such partition should result in the physical division of land.  The plaintiffs in the case did not intend to splinter the vacant lot, but rather, sought to use the partition statute as a means to obtain title to the entire lot, free and clear of its other owners.

After serving all of the co-owners with notice of the partition action, the plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgments against 39 co-owners who did not respond.  Collectively, these 39 individuals owned a 55% interest in the lot.  The court granted default judgments.  Eight co-owners, collectively holding almost 20% interest in the lot, participated in the proceedings.  The court determined that the plaintiffs were entitled to a partition and appointed a commissioner to make recommendations as to the division of the lot.

Continue reading →

Published on:

The legal rights of Massachusetts condominium owners are provided by state laws and may be further defined in the Master Deed to their condo.  For many people, consulting a Massachusetts real estate attorney is helpful to gain a better understanding of these documents and laws.  An October 5, 2018 case between condo unit owners and a condominium developer illustrates the significance of the Master Deed in determining the rights and responsibilities of the parties.

The case arose after the developer recorded two amendments to the Master Deed, which had the effect of permitting construction of 56 additional condo units, doubling the current occupancy.  The plaintiffs contended that the amendments were invalid because the defendant no longer had authority to amend the Master Deed without approval of a majority of the unit owners.

In Massachusetts, the Condominium Act provides the framework for the development of condominiums.  The Act explicitly protects unit owners by mandating their consent to any alteration that materially affects their undivided interests in the common areas.  Accordingly, any such alteration can be achieved only by an amendment to the Master Deed.  There is an exception, however, for phased condominium projects like the one at issue in the case.  Unit owner approval is not required to add new units for a phased project if the Master Deed provided for them at the time it was recorded, and made it possible to determine each unit’s interest after the additions.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Longstanding or frequent disputes between property owners may be difficult to resolve outside of court.  The parties involved in a September 25, 2018 Massachusetts real estate case had clashed over their respective property rights in a sandy beach area for more than a dozen years.  Following a bench trial and a jury trial, the Superior Court entered judgment declaring the usage and ownership rights of each party.  The case reached the Appeals Court of Massachusetts after the parties filed cross-appeals.

The plaintiff in the case was a beach association that owned a parcel of property next to the defendants’ lot.  The defendants’ home was located on a lot within the neighborhood.  Both the plaintiff’s and defendants’ lots abutted a strip of sandy beach on the shore of a large pond.  The plaintiff’s lot and the sandy beach had been used for recreation by the neighborhood’s homeowners and their guests for decades.  The years long dispute among the parties centered around the portion of the beach abutting the defendants’ lot.  The parties disagreed over their respective rights to use of the dock and boat ramp situated on that area, the defendants’ encroachment over the shared boundary line, and the plaintiff’s right to use a footpath behind the defendants’ house.

On appeal, the court looked to the records of prior conveyances of the parties’ lots, which were once owned in common.  In the original conveyance of the parties’ combined lots, the grantor had retained property on the other side of a road shown on the plan.  When viewed from the ground, the road was unpaved in front of the parties’ lots, having remained a strip of sandy beach.  The defendants argued that they had title to the sandy strip because generally, all grants of property bounded by water also pass on the land up to the water.  The appeals court, however, applied the Massachusetts derelict fee statute to conclude that, in the absence of an expressly contrary intent, the grantor conveyed title only to the center line of the road, and not the entire road.  Accordingly, each party owned the portion of sandy breach strip that extended from their respective lots to the mid-point of the strip.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Understanding your rights in real property may be crucial when making legal decisions concerning that property, as illustrated in an August 15, 2018 Massachusetts real estate case.  The dispute centered around property that had been the plaintiff’s home since 1987.  The plaintiff had initially owned the property, but he lost it to foreclosure in 1994.  The plaintiff continued residing in the house, however, after convincing a friend to purchase the house from the foreclosing bank and rent it to him.  The plaintiff hoped to buy the house back after his credit had improved.

In 2003, the house was sold to the defendant, another friend of the plaintiff.  The defendant promised to sell the property back to the plaintiff several times.  Each time, however, the plaintiff failed to close on the property through no fault of the defendant.  The last purchase and sale agreement was executed by the parties in 2015, and the defendant agreed to four extensions of the closing through the following year.  When the plaintiff did not close, the defendant initiated eviction proceedings.  In response, the plaintiff filed an action to impose a constructive or resulting trust over the property, claiming that he had been the property’s rightful owner all along.

A constructive trust is created by the court to prevent unjust enrichment resulting from fraud, a violation of a fiduciary duty, mistake, or other circumstances in which the title owner’s retention of legal title to property would result in unjust enrichment.  A constructive trust is not a true trust.  However, once a court determines that a constructive trust exists, the court can order the unjustly enriched party to transfer the property to the beneficiary of the constructive trust.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Dividing property held in joint ownership may require a court order in cases where the owners cannot reach an agreement.  In a September 5, 2018 Massachusetts real estate case, the Appeals Court reviewed an order of a lower court dividing the property owned by the parties.

The parties in the case owned two noncontiguous parcels as tenants in common.  The plaintiff filed a petition for partition, alleging that physical division of the property was impossible and seeking a sale of both lots.  The lower court divided the property by awarding the more valuable parcel to the defendants, with a monetary payment to the plaintiff to make up the difference in value.  The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the lower court should not have relied on appraisals to determine the value of the property, and instead, should have ordered a public or private sale.

In a Massachusetts partition action, a sale is not simply an equally available alternative to a physical division.  Nor does the difficulty and complexity of achieving a just and equitable physical division of the property, alone, justify a sale.  Rather, the court may only order a sale after it determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the land cannot be divided advantageously.  Generally, the advantage or disadvantage of a division must be a pecuniary one.  The judge may take into account the physical condition of the land to be divided, together with any potential damage to the profitability of the land.  In cases involving multiple noncontiguous lots, as here, the court may divide the property by awarding intact lots to the various parties, rather than by physically dividing each lot by metes and bounds.

Published on:

In Massachusetts, a right of way easement may be legally recognized or established in different ways.  In an August 10, 2018 case, adjacent property owners brought their dispute regarding a right of way easement before the Massachusetts Land Court.  The defendants in the case claimed the right to use a right of way located on the plaintiff’s property.  The plaintiff argued that the defendants had no right to the easement because the right of way was not specifically mentioned in the plaintiff’s certificate of title.

In Massachusetts, a person with a certificate of title to property receives the property free from all encumbrances except those noted on the certificate.  Registered land, therefore, generally cannot be burdened with an easement unless it is shown on the certificate of title.

A property owner may, however, take property subject to an unregistered easement under two narrow exceptions.  First, registered property may be encumbered by an easement if there are facts described on a certificate of title which would prompt a reasonable purchaser to investigate the issue further, such as by examining other certificates, documents, or plans in the registry system.  Second, registered property may be subject to an easement where the purchaser has actual knowledge of a prior unregistered interest, such as an easement.

Continue reading →

Published on:

The purchase and sale agreement between a buyer and seller of property contains important details about the transaction.  A Massachusetts real estate attorney can explain the terms of the purchase and sale agreement so that a home buyer understands the consequences of signing the contract.  In an August 3, 2018 case before the Massachusetts Land Court, the plaintiffs filed an action against the subdivision developer that sold them their home.  The dispute concerned the ownership and use of a lane to access other houses within the subdivision.The plaintiffs in the case purchased their house from the defendant in 2002.  The defendant retained ownership of several acres of land abutting the plaintiffs’ property, intending to develop the parcel as a multi-house subdivision.  The defendant therefore insisted upon a rider to the parties’ purchase and sale agreement, providing that the plaintiffs agreed not to interfere with the planned subdivision and acknowledged that the defendant may grant an easement on the property to serve that subdivision.

In 2017, the defendant finally received approval to build 20 homes on the parcel abutting the plaintiffs’ property.  The permit also allowed the defendant to build a lane providing access to a street from the subdivision.  The plaintiffs filed a quiet title action against the defendant, asserting that the easement was intended to serve a maximum of four homes and that the easement would be overburdened by a lane serving the proposed subdivision.

Continue reading →

Published on:

A disagreement between property owners regarding their respective boundary lines may lead to legal action.  In a July 30, 2018 opinion, the Massachusetts Land Court decided a case concerning the ownership of a disputed area along the boundary line between the parties’ properties.  The area at issue was the driveway separating the two properties.  The plaintiffs in the case brought an action against the defendant to quiet title, claiming ownership over the entire portion of the disputed area pursuant to their deed.The driveway at issue was used by both parties to enter and exit their respective properties.  When the defendant purchased her property in 1998, there was a wood board affixed to the driveway that ran the length of the two houses, indicating a boundary line.  When the plaintiffs purchased their house in 2002, they understood that they were entitled to use the entire driveway between the properties, and they did so.  At some point, however, the defendant told the plaintiffs that the boundary line was down the middle of the driveway and that the plaintiffs could not use or drive on her side of it.

In 2013, the defendant had a survey done of her property to determine the location of the boundary line on the driveway.  The plaintiffs, in turn, obtained a survey in 2015 and sought a second survey thereafter.  The defendant sought a permit and constructed a four-foot fence on the driveway.  The plaintiffs obtained a third survey in 2016, which showed that a portion of the driveway and the defendant’s fence were located on the plaintiffs’ property.

Continue reading →

Contact Information