Brian S. Hickey & others v. Pathways Association, Inc., & others

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court considered a dispute among subdivision landowners concerning easement rights over a private way providing access to a beach. The court addressed ownership of the way and whether easements were enforceable against registered landowners when the easements were referenced in deeds, plans, or the certificates of title of the benefited properties but not specifically noted on the plaintiffs' certificates.

Holdings

1. The defendants rebutted the common-law presumption that the developers conveyed the fee in the way to the owners of the abutting beachfront lots. The developers intended to retain the fee in the way while granting easement rights to the plaintiffs and later purchasers.
2. Although easements burdening registered land generally must be shown on the certificate of title, an easement may bind a purchaser under the first Jackson exception when facts described on the certificate would prompt a reasonable purchaser to investigate other certificates, documents, or plans in the registration system.
3. The first- and second-group defendants held rights of access over the twenty-foot way.
4. The third-group defendants, most of the unclassified defendants, and the holders of the specifically identified certificates also held easement rights over the way, even though their certificates referenced the M Plan or derivative plans rather than expressly listing the way.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the common-law presumption that a grantor conveying land abutting a way conveys the fee to the center line was rebutted by the developers' deeds, subdivision plans, certificates of title, and course of development.
2. Whether defendants held easements over the way even though those easements were not specifically listed on the plaintiffs' certificates of title.
3. Whether the first exception recognized in Jackson v. Knott applied because facts appearing in the plaintiffs' certificates and related registration documents would have prompted a reasonable purchaser to investigate further.
4. Whether defendants whose lots were created on the M Plan and later derivative subdivision plans also held access easements over the way.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded