Real property – Easement – Equitable contribution

Listen to this article

Where plaintiffs who own land subject to an easement have brought suit over the defendant’s refusal to share in certain construction costs that they incurred to replace a bridge on their property that the defendant has historically used to get from the nearest roadway to the easement area, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint should be allowed in part and denied in part, as the plaintiffs have stated a cause of action for equitable contribution but not for overburdening the easement.

“This is an action by the Plaintiffs, Alan and Lynn Labonte, alleging claims against the Defendant, New England Power Co. d/b/a National Grid USA (‘National Grid’), concerning the easement that National Grid holds in, on, and over land owned by the Labontes. The impetus for the action was National Grid’s refusal to share in certain construction costs that the Labontes incurred to replace a bridge on their property which National Grid has historically used to get from the nearest roadway to the easement area. …

“The Labontes’ claims arise out of an easement granted by their predecessors-in-interest to National Grid in 1937 which allows National Grid to use and maintain a corridor of their land, 80 feet wide, for the operation of high and low voltage electric transmission lines (the ‘1937 Easement’). …

“The Labontes have alleged two distinct claims. Count I alleges a claim for ‘Equitable Contribution for Costs of Access to the Easement Area-Bridge Replacement’ and seeks money damages in an amount that is a ‘reasonable contribution’ from National Grid for the cost of the bridge replacement. Count II alleges a claim for ‘Private Nuisance’ based on the Labontes’ contention that National Grid’s current use of the 1937 Easement far exceeds the scope of use contemplated by the original grant and, therefore, overburdens the easement. …

“For jurisdictional purposes, whether National Grid has an equitable obligation to share in the costs of repairing the bridge by virtue of its rights under the 1937 Easement is a dispute involving a right, title, or interest in land. I am persuaded that Count I has alleged an equitable claim cognizable under G.L.c. 185, §1(k) and, therefore, the court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear it. …

“The more difficult question is whether Massachusetts law recognizes a cause of action for equitable contribution as alleged by the Labontes. …

“Here, the Labontes have alleged that National Grid constructed a bridge to access the land encumbered by the 1937 Easement. They have also alleged that the bridge provides access to the rest of their land and, thus, they use the bridge in common with National Grid. Under the Restatement, even if National Grid does not have a common law duty to repair the bridge, it may have an obligation to contribute to the costs to repair and maintain the bridge undertaken by the Labontes. Whether and to what extent it should contribute to those costs will depend on the facts adduced at trial.

“At this early stage of the case, and accepting the Labontes’ allegations as true, they have stated a cause of action for equitable contribution. National Grid’s motion to dismiss Count I under Rule 12(b)(6) is denied. …

“… Count II alleges that National Grid’s use of the 1937 Easement area has created a private nuisance that interferes with the Labontes’ right to the use and enjoyment of their land. …

“… To survive National Grid’s motion, the Labontes’ complaint must allege facts that suggest that National Grid’s current use of the 1937 Easement unreasonably exceeds its intended use as described in the original grant. …

“Accepting the Labontes’ allegations as true, as I must, they do not make out a claim for overburdening the 1937 Easement. National Grid has the express right to install and maintain equipment necessary for the transmission of electricity and to maintain the vegetation around that equipment without limitation. The Labontes’ allegations of overburdening based on larger infrastructure or increased clearing of vegetation do not hold up in light of the plain language of the easement. Indeed, although granted in 1937, the easement contemplated such changes in equipment and usage of the easement area by National Grid.

“Furthermore, there is no language in the easement that requires National Grid to give notice to the Labontes when it intends to enter and use the easement area. Thus, the allegation that National Grid has appeared ‘unannounced’ does not violate the terms of the 1937 easement.

“I find that the Labontes have not alleged a claim for overburdening the 1937 Easement upon which relief may be granted and, therefore, Count II must be dismissed with prejudice.”

Labonte, et al. v. New England Power Co. (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-031-25) (10 pages) (Smith, J.) (Berkshire Land Court) (Docket No. 24 MISC 000688) (June 24, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.