Real property – Easement – Notice

Listen to this article

Where a Land Court judge (1) declared that the defendants have no right to pass over any portion of the property of the plaintiffs and (2) enjoined the defendants from entering the plaintiffs’ property, a remand is necessary because discovery was erroneously restricted on the issue of whether the plaintiffs had actual knowledge of an unregistered document encumbering their property with an easement.

“The defendants, Roel Astacaan and Tracy S. Thomas-Astacaan, appeal from a summary judgment entered in the Land Court declaring that the Astacaans have no right to pass over any portion of the property of the plaintiffs, Seth McClennen and Martha C. Wu, and enjoining the defendants from entering the plaintiffs’ property. The properties at issue are registered land and while we affirm so much of the judgment that concludes that the registration materials contained in the record do not show that the defendants have an easement over the plaintiffs’ property, we conclude that discovery was erroneously restricted on the issue of whether the plaintiffs had actual knowledge of an unregistered document encumbering their property with an easement. Accordingly, we remand the matter for the limited purpose of resolving that issue. …

“… The defendants were entitled to discovery reasonably calculated to lead to ‘intelligible oral or written information that indicates the existence of an encumbrance or prior unregistered interest.’ … At least some of the defendants’ discovery requests were targeted toward such information and the timing and fact of either plaintiff’s knowledge of it. We conclude, therefore, that the protective order was overly broad where the judge viewed as relevant only documents contained in the registration system. Because the judge applied the wrong standard, we remand for further consideration of the plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order as it relates to the actual knowledge exception articulated in Jackson [v. Knott, 418 Mass. 704 (1994)] and its progeny and further proceedings as needed on the actual knowledge exception. …

“So much of the judgment that concludes that the materials in the registration system do not show that the plaintiffs’ property is encumbered by an easement for the benefit of the defendants’ property is affirmed. We otherwise vacate the judgment for further proceedings consistent with this decision to determine whether either plaintiff had actual knowledge of an unregistered document encumbering lot 124 with an easement for the benefit of lot 8. We also vacate the order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order to the extent that it prohibits discovery into whether either plaintiff had actual knowledge of an unregistered document encumbering lot 124 with an easement for the benefit of lot 8. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”

McClennen, et al. v. Astacaan, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-116-24) (15 pages) (Docket No. 23-P-1034) (Oct. 10, 2024).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.