RANDON v. KILEY LADD (2019)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

The plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Land Court declaring that they may not relocate in the manner they propose a driveway easement held by the defendants for passage over the plaintiffs' property. We discern no error of law and affirm.

As the plaintiffs recognize, in order to make changes in the location or the dimensions of an express easement, the owner of the servient estate must demonstrate that “the changes do not (a) significantly lessen the utility of the easement, (b) increase the burdens on the owner of the easement in its use and enjoyment, or (c) frustrate the purpose for which the easement was created” (citation omitted). M.P.M. Bldrs., LLC v. Dwyer, 442 Mass. 87, 90 (2004).⁴ The criteria are disjunctive, and the failure of a servient owner to satisfy any of the three is fatal to a request to relocate or otherwise to change an easement. See id.

In the present case, we discern no error in the judgment of the Land Court that the plaintiffs failed to establish that their proposal to relocate the easement would not increase the burdens on the defendants in their use and enjoyment of it, for substantially the reasons explained in the judge's comprehensive and thoughtful written memorandum of decision. In particular, we note that the proposed modification of the easement would introduce two sharp turns of approximately ninety degrees each, in contrast to the gentle curve in the easement as currently configured, and that one of the new sharp turns would require a virtual U-turn for travel from the driveway into the Uehlein property guesthouse.

Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

4.   Because we conclude that the plaintiffs failed to make such a showing, we need not consider the plaintiffs' contention that the judge incorrectly imposed a separate threshold burden on them to establish that the proposed changes are necessary to permit normal use or development of their property.