Boundaries

Judge Enjoins Paragliders Who Harrassed Homeowners On Peaked Cliff, Plymouth

by Rich Vetstein on June 10, 2021

in Boundaries, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Premises Liability, Real Estate Litigation

First Known Reported Decision In Massachusetts On Private Nuisance and Paragliding

Recently, I filed a very interesting and novel case involving private nuisance and paragliders which resulted in a favorable injunction ruling for my client. My clients have a beautiful home on Peaked Cliff in the Sagamore Highlands area of Plymouth/Bourne, overlooking Cape Cod Bay providing breathtaking views of ocean and cliffs. The home has a large back deck overlooking the ocean which the family uses frequently to enjoy the views and ocean.

With its high thermal wind activity, the area has become a hotbed for a local paragliding club who start flights at 6AM running through sunset. Unfortunately, it is alleged that the gliders have become increasingly reckless and belligerent. They have flown within feet of my clients’ home yelling and screaming obscenities and giving obscene finger gestures. On several instances, the gliders have crash landed on the grounds, and at least one glider crashed into my client’s roof. One glider almost died when he crashed directly on the cliff, necessitating a complicated rescue operation. The gliders were brought before the local conservation commission and were required to implement changes and new safety protocols. Those were not followed, unfortunately.

We filed a lawsuit for private nuisance and trespass in Plymouth Superior Court, asking the Court to issue a no-fly zone around my client’s property.

A private nuisance occurs when someone “creates, permits or maintains a condition or activity on property that causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the property of another.” This is the first case that I am aware of in Massachusetts whether paragliding and hang-gliding may rise to the level of private nuisance. Judge Thomas F. McGuire, Jr. held an in-person evidentiary hearing, which was actually my first in-person hearing since Covid-19 hit. I put together a video montage of photographs and video footage of the offending glider activity and showed that to the Judge. I also cross-examined one of the lead gliders who conceded that their no-fly zone would not substantially impede glider flights in the area.

The Court issued a well-reasoned written opinion granting an injunction prohibiting all glider flights over my client’s property with a 30 foot buffer zone around my client’s property. Notably, the judge found that the club itself had documented the gliders’ problematic activity in their internal meeting minutes (which we found online). The judge ruled that the gliding activity rose to the level of being a private nuisance, and that my clients would suffer irreparable harm if they were not enjoined from flying over and near their house. We are hopeful that this will keep the peace, but the order is enforceable with contempt powers, as the judge made clear in his ruling.

As I said before, this ruling is notable because it’s the first reported decision involving gliders and private nuisance in Massachusetts. With the proliferation of drones and other low flying aircraft and devices, this ruling should provide some much needed legal precedent and guidance in this other situations where property rights conflict with airspace rights.

{ 1 comment }

Typical Suburban Lawn Care Supports Adverse Possession, Appeals Court Holds

by Rich Vetstein on September 4, 2019

in Adverse Possession, Boundaries, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Title Defects, Title Insurance

A recent court ruling confirms a legal principle in Massachusetts which a lot of folks may be surprised to learn. Under the legal theory of adverse possession, if you mow your neighbor’s lawn and otherwise conduct typical suburban lawn care on that property openly and adversely for 20 or more years, you can claim legal ownership of that area. I’m not kidding, this is the law, and this principle comes up more than you think in boundary line disputes in Massachusetts.

Boundary Line Dispute In Newton

The case is Miller v. Abramson (Mass. Appeals Court Aug. 29, 2019) and is a good example of a classic adverse possession lot line dispute.

The Miller family lives in a single-family home at 11 Fellsmere Road in Newton, on a corner lot at the intersection with Ward Street. The Abramson family lives at 211 Ward Street in Newton. Fellsmere Road dead-ends onto Ward Street. As shown on the plan (left), the back of the Millers’ property directly abuts one side line of the Abramsons’ lot. The parties’ shared lot line is straight, running from Ward Street to the back of the Abramsons’ property. The area disputed by the parties forms a thin triangle, about 492 square feet in size, the base of which is along the Abramsons’ back lot line and one side of which is along the parties’ shared lot line. Since the Millers bought their property in 1986, a line of shrubs and small trees have formed a demarcation of the disputed area from the Abramson’s property. Since 1986 to the present, the Millers and their landscaping company mowed the lawn weekly and undertaken typical residential landscaping work within the disputed area.

Lawn Mowing and Typical Suburban Landscaping Can Constitute Adverse Possession

On appeal after the Millers prevailed at a Superior Court jury-waived trial, the Abramson’s argued that lawn mowing and landscaping was not sufficiently intense a use to establish adverse possession. As I have argued in other cases, the three judge panel confirmed that “typical suburban lawn care” can establish adverse possession so long as it was conducted for 20 or more years. The Appeals Court reasoned that “the context supplied by the surrounding landscape is significant in an adverse possession case — a use that is sufficient to establish ownership in a densely populated neighborhood may be inadequate in an isolated, wooded setting.”

So basically what the Appeals Court is saying is that the uses which would qualify for adverse possession depend on the type of property and the typical uses of land for that type of property. Here, in the single family residential setting, typical suburban lawn mowing, tree pruning and landscaping will be sufficient for a landowner to make a valid adverse possession claim. If the property is in a more open, heavily wooded area, more uses may be necessary, such as cutting trees and clearing the land. Conversely, if the property is in a dense urban area, uses such as paving a driveway, installing a fence, or the like may be enough. It depends on the situation, and every case is different.

Take-Away’s — Get a Plot Plan and Owner’s Title Insurance

As a prospective buyer, seller or real estate agent, how can you minimize the risk of adverse possession and boundary line disputes? The gold standard is to have a licensed surveyor undertake an instrument survey and run survey stakes along all lot lines. However, such a survey does cost upwards of $1,000 or more. Most lenders require a mortgage plot plan (around $125) at closing, however, these are not 100% accurate, but they will typically flag a potential encroachment. Owner’s title insurance with enhanced coverage does provide some coverage (subject to a cap) for boundary line disputes, so I always recommend that buyers get this. While buyers often pay the most attention to inside the home with their inspection, it’s a good idea for buyers to walk the property and try to scope out any potential lot line issues.

If you are dealing with a Massachusetts property line or boundary line dispute, please feel free to contact me at [email protected].

{ 0 comments }

Tales From The Boundary Line Trenches

by Rich Vetstein on January 31, 2016

in Adverse Possession, Boundaries, Deeds, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Real Estate Litigation

41 Oakland Street image 3“A picture is worth a thousand words.” – Old Photograph Found In Attic Key to Victory

I handle a fair amount of Massachusetts boundary line and adverse possession disputes. For those who don’t know, adverse possession is a legal doctrine in Massachusetts where one property owner can make a claim of ownership over his neighbor’s land if such use was “open, hostile, adverse, notorious and exclusive” for 20 or more years. These disputes often come up where neighbors don’t know the true location of their property line, and one neighbor puts up a fence, retaining wall or has essentially annexed the land of the other neighbor.

In my most recent case, I am defending a gentleman whose next door neighbor claims adverse possession to an area about 15 feet into my client’s side yard which includes a small portion of the neighbor’s driveway. The dispute arose because my client wanted to put up a 6 foot privacy fence along the lot line. The neighbor sued, asking the court for a preliminary injunction to stop the installation of the fence.

My opponent claimed adverse possession dating back to when he purchased the property in 1985. The first problem I had was that my client bought his property in 2009. Thus, in order to poke holes in the claimed 30 year period, I had to track down the former owners of his property. Luckily, I found them — a charming elderly couple living in Medway. I met them over the weekend and sat down at their kitchen table with the case file and photographs. They said my opponent was a liar and disputed virtually everything he said in his lawsuit.

The elderly man went up to his attic and found several old photographs showing his then young grandchildren playing in the sideyard. That’s the picture in this post. In the background of the photo dating back two decades, you can see a fence in the disputed side yard area. The fence essentially destroyed my opponent’s adverse possession claim because he was physically prevented from using the disputed area, and thus, could not prove 20 years of uninterrupted and adverse use. When I showed the photos to opposing counsel, the response was that his client didn’t remember the fence despite the fact it was there for at least 10 years of his ownership. How convenient!

After working all weekend on the case and armed with the photographs and affidavits from the prior owners, I felt optimistic heading into the injunction hearing before a judge in Norfolk Superior Court. In order to obtain an injunction, the plaintiff is required to show a “likelihood of success on the merits.” The bottom line was that I caught my opponent in a lie, given that he never disclosed the existence of the fence in his original complaint, then came up with the convenient excuse that he didn’t remember it. The judge ruled that the neighbor could not establish adverse possession at this juncture of the case, and denied his motion for an injunction.

As with every adverse possession case, relentless preparation and determination to investigate the history of the property is critical. I was more prepared than my opponent, and that is one of the reasons why I won this round.

_______________________

100316_photo_vetstein-2-150x150.pngIf you are dealing with a Massachusetts boundary or property line dispute involving adverse possession, please contact me at [email protected] or 508-620-5253. I’ve handled scores of these cases successfully through trial and appeal.

{ 0 comments }

Check Before You Cut! Massachusetts Illegal Tree Cutting Carries Substantial Civil Penalties

by Rich Vetstein on January 27, 2013

in Adverse Possession, Boundaries, Environmental Law, Fences, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Real Estate Litigation, Safety, Trespass

recy3Triple Damage Penalty for Willful Cutting Of Neighbor’s Trees 

Neighbors typically get really mad when you chop down their trees. Really mad….and it can get the guy with the chainsaw into a lot of legal trouble. Can you say “triple damages”?

First enacted in 1698, the Massachusetts illegal tree cutting law (General Laws chapter 242, section 7) provides for up to triple damages for the malicious cutting, trimming, or destroying of another’s trees:

A person who without license willfully cuts down, carries away, girdles or otherwise destroys trees, timber, wood or underwood on the land of another shall be liable to the owner in tort for three times the amount of the damages assessed therefor; but if it is found that the defendant had good reason to believe that the land on which the trespass was committed was his own or that he was otherwise lawfully authorized to do the acts complained of, he shall be liable for single damages only.

That said, I always advise property owners who intend to cut trees near boundary lines to consult a survey or plot plan to ensure that the trees are not on their neighbor’s land.

Measure of Damages: Restoration Cost Value

The measure of damages for those harmed by the willful cutting of trees varies from case to case. The most common measure of damages is either the value of the timber cut, restoration cost, or the resulting diminution in value of the property. A claimant is entitled to assert a claim for either value, whichever is highest.

Where the trees cut are tall, hard to replace or have a particular function like screening, or all the above, it is wise to engage a certified arborist to perform a comprehensive restoration cost analysis. The restoration cost analysis takes into account the aesthetics, functionality, age, height, girth, and species of the trees, and formulates a restoration value for the replacement of the removed trees. The method, known as cost-of-cure, involves determining the cost of planting trees and the estimated time for the replacement trees to grow to the size of the destroyed trees (years to parity).

In recent cases, Land Court judges have awarded $30,000 (tripled) for the cutting of 10 mature oak trees and nearly $45,000 (tripled) for the clearing of an 800 square foot woodland area which provided privacy screening. In both of these cases, expert arborist testimony was offered on the restoration cost of the cut trees. And who can forget the case where a Somerset family recovered a $150,000 wrongful death settlement after a women dropped dead after her neighbor wrongfully cut down a swath of sentimental trees.

Branches Over The Property Line

Under Massachusetts common law, you may remove branches of a neighbor’s tree extending over your property line as long as you don’t kill or damage the tree. Also, the neighbor has no liability for roots growing into your yard and causing damage. Massachusetts law does not allow a person to cross or enter a neighbor’s property for these purposes without the neighbor’s consent, nor to remove any branches or other vegetation within the confines of the neighbor’s property. This is the “Massachusetts Rule.”

Utility Tree Cutting

I’ve been reading about many recent disputes between property owners and utility companies (Wayland v. NStar) over tree cutting within utility easements. The law provides a public utility the right to remove or trim your tree if it interferes with the necessary and reasonable operation of the utility. Furthermore, the utility is required to perform tree trimming as part of its program to maintain reliable service for its customers. The National Electric Safety Code requires utilities to trim or remove trees growing near power lines that threaten to disrupt service. Proper and regular tree trimming helps prevent the danger and inconvenience of outages.

Lastly, landscapers and tree cutting companies should get a signed directive from the homeowners and an indemnification prior to cutting trees, as my fellow real estate attorney Chris McHallam points out.

If your trees have been wrongfully removed by a neighbor or if you have mistakenly removed trees, you should consult an experienced Massachusetts property law attorney. Valuation of trees is a science, rather complicated, and best left to the professionals.

___________________________________________

Richard D. VetsteinRichard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney who has handled numerous illegal tree cutting and boundary line disputes. Please contact him at [email protected] or 508.620.5352.

{ 9 comments }

Three Keys To Winning A Massachusetts Adverse Possession and Boundary Line Dispute Case

by Rich Vetstein on November 13, 2012

in Adverse Possession, Boundaries, Fences, Massachusetts Real Estate Law

property-line-survey-getty_f11341f289ae931d07403cac3726db78_3x2_jpg_300x200_q85Trial Report: Winiker v. Bell (Middlesex Superior Court CA 09-907)

I was lead trial counsel in a week-long adverse possession/boundary line dispute case back in August in Middlesex Superior Court before Judge Bruce Henry. We had closing arguments last week, and the judge’s decision just came down. I’m thrilled to report that we prevailed! Hard work (lots of it) does indeed pay off…

Judge Henry drafted a 13-page well-reasoned opinion, which I’ve embedded below. By and large, the judge accepted my view of the facts and the law, and cited many of the cases which I referenced in my briefs. The claimants, having been unable to establish adverse possession, were ordered by the judge to remove their driveway and retaining wall which encroaches onto my client’s property.

Some take-aways from the case:

  • Prepare, prepare, prepare. I had a lot more work on my side, with 8 testifying witnesses and a binder full of exhibits. I prepared for a solid two weeks before this trial, and by the trial, I knew every blade of grass and rock on the disputed area. I also had deposition testimony of the claimants which I used to impeach them when they inevitably changed their stories or failed to remember key details. I also had blowups of aerial photos of the property which were very helpful. Lastly, I convinced the trial judge to take a “view” of the property, so he could see the layout of the property himself. My opponent had much more trial experience than me, so I had to overcompensate by knowing the facts and law inside and out.
  • Track down old owners. Since my opponents were claiming adverse possession going back to the 1960’s, the first and most important thing we had to do was to track down all the old owners of my client’s property, and put together an accurate historical timeline of the property. Including my client, there were seven owners of the property! This was the only way my client could mount a defense against the claim. One of the old owners lived in Florida, and he came up to testify about having pig roasts near the disputed area, among other stories. Other former owners testified and a few were not exactly thrilled to be dragged into court.
  • Establish a theory of the case. Going into the trial, I knew that the claimants’ use of the disputed property — lawn mowing, landscaping, storing construction materials and snow plowing — was arguably not strong enough to establish adverse possession. I also knew that they did nothing to prevent the owners of my client’s property from accessing the disputed area. I hammered them continuously on each of the required elements of adverse possession, eventually punching holes in the foundation of their case. I also had to be a bit ruthless. My opponents’ age was in their 70’s, so I had to exploit their memory lapses. An amusing moment was when the husband produced an old photo of his 3 kids, but when questioned, could not remember the names or ages of his own children!

With yet another win under my belt, I have built a solid niche practice area in Massachusetts adverse possession law and boundary line disputes. I really enjoy working on these types of cases as they are factually intensive and usually have a fair share of nasty neighbor drama!

Listen to my recent radio appearance on boundary line disputes and adverse possession! Click play.

______________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts adverse possession and boundary line dispute attorney who has tried numerous adverse possession cases in Land Court and Superior Court. Please contact me if you are dealing with a Massachusetts adverse possession dispute.

Samuel Winiker v. Kimberly BellJudgment, Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law

{ 2 comments }

The Anatomy of a Massachusetts Adverse Possession Trial: A View from Counsel’s Table

by Rich Vetstein on August 11, 2012

in Adverse Possession, Boundaries, Deeds, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Real Estate Litigation

Update: My Clients Prevail (Click Here for Judge’s Ruling)

Effective Preparation and Historical Timeline Key To Trial

I just completed a four day jury waived trial in an adverse possession case in Superior Court. I wanted to share some of my experience as a Massachusetts adverse possession attorney, and what I learned during this case. (For confidentiality reasons, I will not disclose the name of the case or the county in which it was brought). We are waiting for a decision from the judge, which will take several months.

Side Property Line Dispute

The case was a fight over land between two homes in a suburban town.  The dispute arose after my client, “Ms. Jones,” surveyed her property in anticipation of doing an addition project. The survey unfortunately revealed that a portion of the driveway and nearby retaining wall owned by her next door neighbor, “Mr. and Mrs. Smith,” encroached the side lot line. Efforts to resolve the encroachment dispute were unsuccessful, and the Smiths ultimately filed the adverse possession lawsuit, claiming that they had used not only the small encroached area, but a much larger 2,200 square foot area of Ms. Jones’ side yard, for more than 40 years.

Tracking Down Old Owners

Since the Smiths were claiming adverse possession going back to the 1960’s, the first and most important thing we had to do was to track down all the old owners of my client’s property and put together an accurate historical timeline of the property.  Including my client, there were seven owners of the property! This was the only way my client could mount a defense against the Smith’s claim, since the Smiths owned their property all that time. One of the old owners lived in Florida, and he came up to testify about having pig roasts near the disputed area, among other stories. Other former owners testified and a few were not exactly thrilled to be dragged into court. That’s the nature of the beast.

Proving The Timeline

Next, we had to demonstrate the historical use of the disputed area over four decades. These are very factually intensive cases. The key to every adverse possession case is what and how the parties actually used the disputed area. The parties’ knowledge or lack thereof of the true boundary line is really not the important issue. Generally, the more intense the use and the more the claimant takes action to exclude the other party from using the disputed land, the better the claim for adverse possession. Conversely, the less intense the use, the less successful the claim. Still, adverse possession is a very difficult claim to win as the law does not favor taking someone’s land.

Some important questions in any Massachusetts adverse possession case are:  Did the plaintiff mow the lawn? Did they maintain any landscaping? Did they install a fence or other barrier? Did they demarcate where they used the land? Did they make any permanent improvements to the disputed area? Did they plant anything or install a garden? Did they clear brush? Did they cut down trees or plant new trees? Did the defendant grant permission to use the disputed area. (Permissive use destroys an adverse possession case).

Preparation Is Key

Compared to my opposing counsel, I had a lot more work on my side with triple the number of testifying witnesses and cross examination of the claimants. I prepared for a solid two weeks before this trial, and by the trial, I knew every blade of grass and rock on the disputed area.  I also had deposition testimony of the claimants which I used to impeach them when they inevitably changed their stories or failed to remember key details. I also had blowups of aerial photos of the property from Bing Maps which were very helpful. Lastly, I convinced the trial judge to take a “view” of the property, and he did visit the property with counsel the day after the trial was over.

We are filing post-trial briefs at the end of August, and then the judge will make a decision. I’ll let you know how it turns out.

__________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts adverse possession and boundary line dispute attorney who has tried numerous adverse possession cases in Land Court and Superior Court. Please contact me if you are dealing with a Massachusetts adverse possession dispute.

{ 1 comment }

Footprints In The Sand: Massachusetts Beach Access Law

by Rich Vetstein on July 20, 2012

in Adverse Possession, Boundaries, Easements, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Public Accommodation, Trespass

“My life is like a stroll on the beach…as near to the edge as I can go.”

— Henry Thoreau

No Massachusetts summer is complete without some good times spent on the beach, be it on Cape Cod, Ipswich, or Duxbury. But what happens when you are taking a nice stroll on the beach and hit one of those “No Trespassing — Private Beach” signs? Can you continue walking? Can you walk on the water’s edge or wet sand? What about swimming, fishing or boating? Most folks are unaware of Massachusetts’ archaic beach access laws, and I will try my best to explain them in this post.

Origins To Colonial Days:  General Rule, No Public Access To Private Beach Areas

Massachusetts has a unique set of laws giving coastal property owners more extensive private rights to beachfront area than other states. In most coastal states, there is unlimited public access to beachfront areas and you can walk unfettered along the beach. In Massachusetts, however, that is not the case. Here private coastal property owners own the beach area adjacent to their properties down to the mean low tide area, with some limited public access exceptions. This is how the concept of “private” beach areas have been established.

The origin of this law dates back to the Mayflower days. In order to facilitate coastal development, under the Colonial Ordinances of 1641-47, the Massachusetts Bay Colony conveyed most, but not all, rights of ownership to the area between the average or mean high water mark and the low water mark (up to 100 “rods,” or 1,650 feet, from the high water mark) to all private coastal landowners. The land—but not the water—between the two tide marks is known as “private tidelands.” This typically includes all of the wet sand area on beaches.

The general rule is that with some limited exceptions explained below, beach-goers in Massachusetts cannot access any private beach area down to the low tide water mark without the permission of the beachfront property owner.

Limited Public Beach Access Between Low and High Tide Area for “Fishing, Fowling and Navigation”

The Colonial Ordinance reserved three specific and important rights of public use within the private tidelands for “fishing, fowling and navigation.” Those permissible uses have been broadly interpreted by Massachusetts courts to include: (1) the right to fish or to collect shellfish on foot or from a vessel; (2) the right to navigate, including the right to float on a raft, windsurf, or sail; and (3) the right to hunt birds for sport or sustenance, on a boat or on foot. (Though there is no court decision on point, the Attorney General maintains that this right also covers bird-watching.)

Accordingly, the public has access to any so-called “private” beach or any private tideland area as long as you are legitimately engaging in “fishing, fowling, or navigation.”

These antiquated Massachusetts beach access laws have created many disputes between public beach-goers and wealthy coastal property owners who have attempted to enforce a “private beach” regime. Under the Colonial Ordinance, no private property owner may deny access to someone who is fishing or hunting for birds or even surfing or launching a kayak. Indeed, knowledgeable beach-goers are often seen walking with beach with fishing rods in hand or shellfish equipment, so as to claim access rights under the Colonial Ordinance.

What About Swimming?

Swimming rights are a bit confusing. According to the courts, swimming in the intertidal zone is included within the reserved public right of navigation, but only so long as your feet don’t touch the bottom! And you don’t have a right to walk along the wet sand area solely for the purpose of gaining access for swimming. So basically you have the right to swim into a private beach area provided you continue to swim and don’t stand or walk into the private tidelands zone. So try not to drown..

Can I Walk Below the Low Tide Line?

Yes, private property owners cannot interfere with the public’s right to walk along the submerged lands that lie seaward of the low tide line. With few exceptions, they don’t own that land; the public does. But this is tricky because the mean low tide area is seldom marked and changes historically.

I own beachfront property. I don’t mind the public walking along my wet sand area even if they are not “fishing, fowling, or navigating,” so long as by allowing this, I don’t lose any property rights in the process. Is there some way that I can be a ‘good citizen’ and still retain my property rights?”

Yes. What you appear to be worried about is the legal concept known as “prescription” or “adverse possession.” I have written a detailed post on adverse possession here. This is the idea that if someone uses your property for a sufficiently long time, they may be able to claim a property interest in it. For someone to be able to make this claim, however, their use has to be without your permission. Therefore, openly allowing the public to walk across your land (e.g., by “posting” such permission) is usually the best way of defeating someone’s ability to accrue such a right. Posting the land in this manner, of course, would not affect any access rights that anyone had already obtained before the posting.

Under existing state law, a property owner who allows the public to use his or her land for recreational purposes without charging for such use is shielded from liability for injuries sustained during that use so long as the property owner did not act with such “fault” that his or her conduct constituted “wilful, wanton or reckless conduct.”

*******

Well, that’s it on the rather complicated topic of Massachusetts beach access law. Enjoy your beach day and perhaps start carrying a fishing rod or line when you take a long walk!

More Helpful Resources:

Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Fact Sheet

FAQs on Beach Access By Trisha Daly-Karlson

__________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate litigation attorney who’s handled numerous adverse possession and beach access cases in Land Court and Superior Court. Please contact me if you are dealing with a Massachusetts real estate dispute.

{ 4 comments }

Somerset Woman Drops Dead After Neighbor Cuts Her Trees, Wrongful Death Lawsuit Ensues

by Rich Vetstein on July 5, 2012

in Boundaries, Fences, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Premises Liability, Real Estate Litigation, Safety

69 Year Old Woman Found Dead After Neighbor’s Handyman Cuts 30-foot Arborvitaes; Estate Recovers $150,000 Wrongful Death Settlement

In a tragic case out of Somerset, Massachusetts reported by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, a woman’s estate has recovered a $150,000 wrongful death settlement after she dropped dead when her neighbor cut down a row of trees which she and her husband planted 40 years ago.

According to Taunton lawyer Claudine A. Cloutier, who represented the woman’s estate, the neighbor hired a worker to remove some of the trees. When the woman discovered they had been cut down, she apparently became emotionally distraught. Her son found her dead in a chair the next day. There were no signs of trauma. Her estate brought negligence and tort claims against the neighbor, alleging wrongful death partially caused by stress arising from the destruction of the plants. The case went to mediation, and was settled before trial for $150,000.

Massachusetts Illegal Tree Cutting Law

Disputes over tree pruning and cutting are very common in Massachusetts. Indeed, Massachusetts has one of the oldest tree cutting and trimming laws on the books which provides for triple damages for any illegal cutting:

A person who without license willfully cuts down, carries away, girdles or otherwise destroys trees, timber, wood or underwood on the land of another shall be liable to the owner in tort for three times the amount of the damages assessed therefor; but if it is found that the defendant had good reason to believe that the land on which the trespass was committed was his own or that he was otherwise lawfully authorized to do the acts complained of, he shall be liable for single damages only.

Nevertheless, at common law, a neighbor may remove branches extending over a shared property line onto his or her own property. Also, the neighbor has no liability for roots growing into your yard and causing damage. Massachusetts law does not allow a person to cross or enter a neighbor’s property for these purposes without the neighbor’s consent, nor to remove any branches or other vegetation within the confines of the neighbor’s property. You can trim the branches and roots back, but you cannot kill the tree. This is the “Massachusetts Rule.”

Damages are assessed that either the market value of the timber or the replacement cost of the trees. Replacement cost typically requires the assistance of an expert arborist or landscaper. In a case out of Martha’s Vineyard, the appeals court upheld a $30,000 award for the replacement cost of 10 mature oak trees. Upon a finding of maliciousness under the tree cutting law, those damages were tripled.

Before cutting, trimming or pruning trees on or near your property line, it’s always a good idea to consult your plot plan or survey and speak to your neighbor before taking out the chain saws.

Utility Tree Cutting

I’ve been reading about many recent disputes between property owners and utility companies (Wayland v. NStar) over tree cutting within utility easements. The law provides a public utility the right to remove or trim your tree if it interferes with the necessary and reasonable operation of the utility. Furthermore, the utility is required to perform tree trimming as part of its program to maintain reliable service for its customers. The National Electric Safety Code requires utilities to trim or remove trees growing near power lines that threaten to disrupt service. Proper and regular tree trimming helps prevent the danger and inconvenience of outages.

More Resources:  Massachusetts Law Library

_______________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experience real estate attorney who has litigated numerous illegal tree cutting cases. If you are dealing with a Massachusetts unlawful tree cutting or trimming situation, please contact him at 508-620-5352 or via email at [email protected].

{ 5 comments }

Do I Need A Plot Plan For My Massachusetts Real Estate Closing?

by Rich Vetstein on January 6, 2012

in Boundaries, Closings, Deeds, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Permitting/Zoning, Title Insurance, Zoning

Massachusetts Plot Plan

Plot Plans, also called Mortgage Inspection Plans, were once part of every Massachusetts real estate purchase closing. These days, some lenders do not require them and I will tell you why in this post. However, despite the limitations of a plot plan, I think it’s a good idea for buyers to purchase a plot plan at closing. The typical cost of a plot plan is around $125.00 so it’s affordable.

While it is not nearly as accurate as a full instrument land survey, a plot plan will give the buyer a visual of the lot lines, the approximate location of the home and accessory structures, and any easements running through the land. Also, when you go to sell your property, a plot plan is helpful for prospective buyers to review as part of the marketing package.

What Is A Plot Plan?

A plot plan, also called a Mortgage Inspection Plan, confirms the following information:

  • Does the house or building, as well as accessory structures (pools, sheds, etc), conform to the local setback zoning by-laws?
  • Does the house or building, as well as accessory structures, fall within the FEMA flood hazard zone (which would require flood insurance)?
  • Are there any building encroachments?
  • Are there any recorded easements running through the property?

In addition to answering these questions, a plot plan includes helpful reference information such as the deed book and page numbers, property plan numbers, land court plan numbers (if applicable), assessor map and lot numbers and F.E.M.A. rate map numbers. This information can be very helpful to the homeowner and a potential buyer as well.

How Is A Plot Plan Prepared?

It is important to point out that a plot plan is NOT a land survey, and is not prepared using standard instrument survey instruments. A plot plan is prepared using visual inspection and measuring tapes only. A physical inspection of the dwelling’s exterior is made, with tape measurements to show the approximate location of the dwelling. The preparer will review the recorded deed and plan(s) obtained at the Registry of Deeds or town offices to determine the lot configuration. Information from the field is merged with record information to create a drawing of the property (the plot plan) and the approximate location of the dwelling on the lot. The flood zone is determined. A quality review performed by Professional Land Surveyor.

The accuracy of a plot plan is usually within two to three feet. The field work involved in preparing the Mortgage Inspection Plan does not include the setting of property line stakes. Therefore, although tape measurements are sufficient to make zoning and flood hazard determinations, the plan should not be used as a substitute for a “Building Permit Plot Plan” or to determine property lines. A plot plan cannot be used as a substitute for a full instrument land survey.

What is Not Provided by a Mortgage Plot Plan?

As stated before, a plot plan has its limitations, which is a reason cited by lenders for not requiring them, such as:

  • No representation is made as to the accuracy of the depicted property lines.
  • No attempt has been made to verify the boundary configuration or, typically, the mathematical correctness of the legal property description.
  • Property corners can not be located based on this type of plan, therefore no fences, hedge rows or other improvements can be determined or located.
  • The location of any improvements shown are approximate, and therefore any planned construction should not be based on the locations as shown.

What is a Certified Plot Plan, Boundary, Land or Instrument Survey?
An accurate instrument land survey involves the location of established monuments or survey control points, which are then mathematically tied in to the property being surveyed. This process utilizes sophisticated, state-of-the-art equipment, and precisely locates both the property lines and the improvements on the property in relation to those property lines. The cost of a full instrument survey can range from $1,000 to $5,000, depending on the property. You can use a land survey for construction, Land Court, and Registry of Deeds plans.

How Do I Get A Plot Plan?

If your lender requires a plot plan at closing — check your Good Faith Estimate or closing cost worksheet — it will order one for you and you’ll have it at closing. If your lender does not require a plot plan, speak to your closing attorney and they will gladly order one for you!

______________________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney. Please contact him if you need assistance with a Massachusetts purchase or sale transaction.

{ 1 comment }

Trick or Tree! Fallen Tree and Downed Power Line Questions After Halloween N’or Easter

by Rich Vetstein on October 31, 2011

in Boundaries, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Premises Liability, Safety

Tree Damage At My House, Sudbury MA

It was only 3 months ago I was blogging about fallen trees and downed power lines in the wake of Hurricane Irene. Well, here we go again with the Halloween N’or Easter Storm 2011 with the same questions and answers. As you can see to my right, I woke up to a huge limb across my front lawn, which luckily didn’t snap my lines or hit my house! For those less unfortunate, I will outline the law again.

Who Is Responsible If My Neighbor’s Tree Falls On My Property?

The short answer is that, legally speaking, your neighbor is not liable for a healthy tree falling down during a major storm event. That is considered an “Act of God” for which no one is legally liable (except God of course, but I think he enjoys some type of legal immunity–I’m not sure, I’ll have to research that one). So, you will have to make a claim under your homeowner’s insurance policy for the damage caused by the neighbor’s tree.

As the court stated in the 1983 case of Ponte v. DaSilva:

The failure of a landowner to prevent the blowing or dropping of leaves, branches, and sap from a healthy tree onto a neighbor’s property is not unreasonable and cannot be the basis of a finding of negligence or private nuisance. Of course, a neighbor has the right to remove so much of the tree as overhangs his property. To impose liability for injuries sustained as a result of debris from a healthy tree on property adjoining the site of the accident would be to ignore reality, and would be unworkable. No case has been brought to our attention in which liability has been imposed in such circumstances

On the other hand, if the neighbor’s tree was diseased or decayed, was known to be at risk of falling and the neighbor ignored it, there could be negligence and liability. Either way, if you have homeowner’s insurance, the insurance companies will sort out fault and blame.

{ 5 comments }

When Good Fences Make Upset Neighbors: Adverse Possession Law In Massachusetts

by Rich Vetstein on June 2, 2010

in Adverse Possession, Boundaries, Deeds, Fences, Massachusetts Property Values, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Title Defects, Trespass

Click here to read about my most recent adverse possession trial victory.

Massachusetts Adverse Possession Law

Robert Frost ‘s famous poem The Mending Wall says “good fences make good neighbors.” When that fence encroaches over a neighbor’s property line, however, that good neighbor can turn nasty very quickly.

When boundary or encroachments disputes arise, a little known legal doctrine often comes into play:  adverse possession. Adverse possession is a common law concept in Massachusetts under which homeowners may lose title to their land by sleeping on their property rights for 20 consecutive years against a neighbor who has taken actions contrary to their property interests. Yes, a neighbor can effectively take over ownership of your land if you sleep on your rights. Massachusetts adverse possession law reflects a public policy aimed at inducing landowners to actively protect their land.

The classic example of adverse possession is a neighbor who puts up a fence or paves a driveway several feet over their neighbor’s property line, without permission, and this “adverse possession” continues without objection for 20 consecutive years.  Despite the fact that the neighbor’s fence or driveway encroaches the property line, under the adverse possession doctrine, the property owner may lose title to the disputed strip of land by not doing, saying or even knowing anything about it.

Requirements For Adverse Possession

A landowner can obtain adverse possession only by filing a lawsuit and establishing several elements of the claim.  (My property law professor used a handy acronym called OCEAN to help students remember them). The use of another’s land must be Open, Continuous (for 20 years), Exclusive, Adverse and Notorious. Each element has its own specific requirements, and all adverse possession cases are very fact-specific. The law does not favor adverse possession, so the burden of proof on the claimant is relatively high.

Adverse possession can also occur through multiple prior owners during the 20 year period under a theory called “tacking.” Adverse possession can also be in the form of an easement, or merely a right to use property, called a “prescriptive easement.” This could apply to the gamut of utility, pathway, or access easements.

Surveys and Stakes

Surveys typically form the genesis, and play an important role in, adverse possession cases. The parties must know where the true lot lines are on the property. Sometimes, there are disputes as to the survey in cases of old, poorly laid out lots. Remember that even if you believe the neighbor is wrong about the lot line, it is against the law in Massachusetts to remove survey stakes. (Mass. General Laws Chapter 266, Section 94).   Also under Massachusetts law, a surveyor is allowed to enter upon your land, with reasonable notice, for purposes of completing a survey.

Tips To Prevent Adverse Possession

The key to preventing adverse possession is to be proactive regarding your boundary lines and property rights. If you suspect an encroachment, obtain a full instrument survey, not a mortgage plot plan which can be inaccurate. If an encroachment is found, consult an attorney for further advice.

Generally, the most effective methods to prevent adverse possession are to:

  • Posting “No trespassing” signs (can be helpful, but is not fail-safe)
  • Physically demarcate lot lines with a fence, gate or the like (survey stakes alone may not be enough)
  • Document giving permission to an encroaching neighbor by written document or agreement
  • For prescriptive easements, record a statutory Notice to Prevent Acquisition of Easement. Note: this notice will not prevent a claim of adverse possession to the entire land.
  • Bring a lawsuit to “quiet title”
  • Submit your land to the Land Court registration system

The more land you own (especially raw woodlands) the more proactive you need to be.

Lastly, when buying new property, consider getting an enhanced title insurance policy which has coverage for encroachments and boundary issues, at a small premium over standard rates.

Adverse Possession Lawsuits

Given the high cost and low supply of land in Massachusetts, adverse possession disputes often wind up in litigation. Adverse possession litigation can be expensive because these cases are very fact-specific and require a fair amount of witnesses, factual investigation, title research, and even expert testimony. Adverse possession cases are generally difficult to win, but they can be successful with the right facts and good preparation.

The Massachusetts Land Court hears adverse possession cases along with the Superior Court. Depending on the facts of the case, the plaintiff can do a bit of “forum shopping” between the two courts.

Click here to read about my most recent adverse possession trial victory.
Click Play to listen to my radio broadcast on adverse possession
_______________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts adverse possession attorney who’s handled numerous adverse possession cases and trials in Land Court and Superior Court. Please contact me at [email protected] or 508-620-5352 if you are dealing with a Massachusetts adverse possession dispute.

{ 15 comments }