Property Law Developments—Joseph William Singer

State zoning enabling statutes generally define who has the power to challenge decisions by zoning boards about allowable land uses. Many allow abutters who are specially affected by land uses to challenge the legality of building permits or zoning decisions on the ground that if they are not granted this right, there will be no deterrence to zoning boards who ignore the limits of local zoning regulations. The Massachusetts Land Court affirmed the right of abutters who can show they were affected by neighboring land use to challenge zoning permit decisions as “persons aggrieved” under state statutes. Teti v. Town of Sherborn, 20 LCR 154 (Mass. Land Ct. Feb. 29, 2012).

The Massachusetts Land Court has reaffirmed that easements can be implied from prior use if they were used before severance of the two parcels and are “reasonably necessary” for use of the dominant estate while easements by necessity require the dominant estate to be inaccessible but for the easement. Black v. Klaetke, 20 LCR 120, 2012 Mass. LCR LEXIS 56 (Mass. Land Ct. 2012).

The Massachusetts Land Court has reaffirmed the longstanding rule that occupation of property is sufficient to  make it “adverse” or nonpermissive. Kissinger v. Frankelton, MISC 10-420652 (Mass. Land Ct. Mar. 8, 2012). Adverse possessors need not know they are occupying land of another or intend to wrest it from the control of others. Such a requirement would reward land pirates and deny protection to longstanding good faith possessors. While this rule is long established and sensible, it is remarkable how many cases revisit it, perhaps because some lawyers did not pay attention in law school and continue to argue that “adverse” possession depends on the adverse possessor’s knowledge of intrusion onto the property of another and intent to take it.

A Massachusetts trial court has banned a gun club from allowing pistols and rifles to be fired on its premises in the face of evidence that stray bullets have entered neighboring properties. Read article Justice Charles Hely converted a three-year-old temporary restraining order into a permanent injunction and ordered payment of a total $22,000 in damages to be paid to several neighbors who lived within a half-mile radius of the club. One plaintiff narrowly escaped being hit by a bullet that entered her laundry room shortly after she left it. The club had also been shut down for failure to obtain necessary permits.