Patterson v. Paul

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the view easements at issue were affirmative easements and therefore were not subject to the thirty-year limitation in G. L. c. 184, § 23. The easements protected the views existing when they were created in 1999, but permitted trimming and topping beyond one year's growth when maintenance occurred less frequently than annually. The court also held that the declaratory judgment applied equally to all parties whose rights were governed by the easements.

Holdings

1. The view easements were affirmative easements because they expressly granted the holders the right to enter the servient estate and trim and top vegetation. They therefore were not restrictions on the use of land subject to the thirty-year limitation in G. L. c. 184, § 23.
2. The easements protected the views that existed in April 1999, when the deeds were created. They authorized trimming and topping to preserve those views, but did not authorize wholesale removal of vegetation to create a better or completely unobstructed view.
3. The easements did not limit trimming and topping to vegetation growth occurring during the preceding year. The work could occur once per calendar year, but it was not required to occur annually and, if performed after several years, could address the accumulated growth necessary to preserve the 1999 views.
4. The declarations concerning the rights and obligations under the view easements applied equally to the plaintiffs and defendants because the easements imposed the same operative provisions on all parties.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the reciprocal view easements were affirmative easements or negative easements subject to the thirty-year limitation in G. L. c. 184, § 23.
2. Whether the view easements protected only the views existing when the deeds were created in 1999 or instead authorized removal of vegetation to create completely unobstructed views.
3. Whether the easements limited trimming and topping to vegetation growth occurring during the preceding year.
4. Whether the declaratory judgment defining the rights and obligations under the view easements applied equally to all parties.

Disposition

affirmed