Real property – Easement – Length

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff filed a complaint challenging the installation of a fence and gate that blocked the plaintiff’s street access over an easement on the defendant’s property, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be allowed in part, as the easement is at least 57.25 feet long, but a factual dispute remains as to whether the easement is 72 feet long as claimed by the plaintiff.

“At a case management conference in September 2024, the [defendants Juan and Segundo Morocho] conceded that an easement of uncertain length and location existed on 465 Peckham Street. [Plaintiff] Pioneer [Investments, LLC] and the Morochos later narrowed that dispute to one concerning the length of the Easement. Thus, the Court ordered the parties to file motions and cross-motions for summary judgment on this issue, as well as a joint pre-trial conference memorandum regarding Pioneer’s damages claim. Pioneer moved for summary judgment, seeking a declaration that the Easement is 72 feet long. The Morochos cross-moved, asserting that the Easement is only 57.25 feet long. …

“On April 24, 1894, Mark Smith conveyed 485 Peckham Street to Charles Smith by deed (the ‘Smith Deed’) recorded at the Fall River Registry of Deeds (the ‘F.R. Registry’) in Book 20, Page 505. …

“Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Morochos, it is unclear that the Smith Deed establishes a 72-foot-long easement; the Deed merely could be locating an existing, but shorter, way. Similarly, the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to Pioneer does not establish that the Easement is only 57.25 feet long; nowhere does the deed mention a 57.25 foot dimension. Absent evidence on the conditions of 485 Peckham Street in 1894, the Court cannot grant fully either of the parties’ motions without drawing impermissible inferences regarding Mark Smith’s intent.

“In view of the foregoing facts, the Court grants Pioneer’s motion for summary judgment only to the extent the Morochos concede the Easement is at least 57.25 feet long, but otherwise denies the motion. The Court also denies the Morochos’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The Court will include the parties’ dispute concerning the length of the Easement among the issues to be tried in this case.”

Pioneer Investments, LLC v. Morocho, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-038-25) (6 pages) (Vhay, J.) (Bristol Land Court) (Docket No. 24 MISC 000276) (July 30, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.