Massachusetts Court of Appeals Affirms Relocation of Beach Easement under M.P.M. Builders
Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. - Massachusetts Environmental, Land Use & Real Estate Alert, January 1, 2008
In Carlin v. Cohen, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 106 (2008), the Appeals Court affirmed the Land Court’s ruling that a deeded easement for beach access could be relocated pursuant to the principles annunciated by the Supreme Judicial Court in M.P.M. Builders v. Dwyer, 442 Mass. 87 (2004) (“M.P.M.”).
The dispute in Carlin arose between neighbors on Martha’s Vineyard after the defendant proposed to replace the small summer cottage on his beachfront property with a larger house. The plaintiff sought to enjoin construction of the house in what she alleged was the location of a deeded easement providing her with access by foot over the property of the defendant to a private beach. Construction of the larger house also would interfere with the plaintiff’s unobstructed view of the ocean.
Under M.P.M., which adopted Section 4.8(3) of the Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) (2000), the owner of a servient estate whose property is burdened by an easement may seek to relocate that easement so long as the alternative satisfies certain criteria. Section 4.8(3) provides that, unless the terms of the easement expressly provide otherwise, “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.”
In a bifurcated trial, the Land Court ruled both that the beach access easement was located in part in the footprint of the larger house and that the easement could be relocated to an alternate location under M.P.M. The servient estate owner proposed numerous alternative locations for the easement, and the Land Court ruled that one alternative means of access to the beach was suitable because it was shorter than the original easement, protected the parties’ privacy, was not subject to greater erosion than the original location, and was relatively flat. Based on these factors, the Court concluded the alternative easement location satisfied the M.P.M. criteria.
The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court’s refusal to consider testimony offered by the dominant estate holder as to the potential diminution in her property value because her view would be interfered with by the presence of the larger house on the servient estate. The Court ruled that so long as the three M.P.M. criteria are satisfied as to the utility, use and enjoyment, and purpose of the easement itself, effects unrelated to the purpose of the easement which may reduce the value of the dominant estate should not be considered. Where the easement at issue was created for access and not for view, impacts to views should not be considered.
The Appeals Court did disagree with the Land Court’s view of what consideration should be given to the potential increase in maintenance associated with the alternate easement location. The Appeals Court emphasized that under M.P.M., whether a dominant estate holder would be required to undertake more frequent maintenance of the easement than the original location is relevant to the inquiry as to whether the relocation would impermissibly “increase the burdens on the owners of the easement in its use and enjoyment.” The Appeals Court otherwise affirmed, however, that the relocation of the easement was appropriate under M.P.M.
For further information, contact Brian C. Levey at blevey@bdlaw.com or Krista L. Hawley at khawley@bdlaw.com.
