{"id":223,"date":"2019-08-30T18:57:00","date_gmt":"2019-08-30T18:57:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/?p=223"},"modified":"2023-12-15T21:57:18","modified_gmt":"2023-12-15T21:57:18","slug":"abandonment-of-an-easement-shown-when-fence-closes-access-to-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/2019\/08\/30\/abandonment-of-an-easement-shown-when-fence-closes-access-to-it\/","title":{"rendered":"Abandonment of an easement shown when fence closes access to it"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Owners built a retaining wall and deck that completely excluded the neighbor from use of the strip of land, thereby extinguishing the easement by prescription since these acts &#8220;render[ed] use of [the] easement practically impossible&#8221; for the statutory period. &nbsp;<a href=\"http:\/\/masscases.com\/cases\/land\/2019\/2019-17-000597-DECISION.html\">Giannelli Mgmt. &amp; Dev. Corp. v. MPA Granada Highlands, LLC<\/a>, 21 LCR 211, 216, 2019 Mass. LCR LEXIS 82, 2019 WL 1995535 (Mass. Land Ct. 2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The court also&nbsp;found the easement was also extinguished by abandonment because the conduct of the easement owner showed an &#8220;intent to abandon the easement by acts inconsistent with the continued existence of the easement.&#8221; 21 LCR at 216.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&#8220;Nonuse of the easement, standing alone, is not sufficient to constitute an abandonment by the owner of the dominant estate.&#8221; However, an &#8220;extended period of nonuse is a factor to consider in determining whether an easement has been abandoned,&#8221; especially when combined with &#8220;acquiescence to the use of the [easement] made by others,&#8221;\u00a021 LCR at 217. Here the easement owner built a fence that blocked the easement and made it impossible to use.<\/p>\n\n\n<div class=\"taxonomy-category wp-block-post-terms\"><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/adverse-possession\/\" rel=\"tag\">Adverse Possession<\/a><span class=\"wp-block-post-terms__separator\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/easements\/\" rel=\"tag\">Easements<\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Owners built a retaining wall and deck that completely excluded the neighbor from use of the strip of land, thereby extinguishing the easement by prescription since these acts &#8220;render[ed] use of [the] easement practically impossible&#8221; for the statutory period. &nbsp;Giannelli Mgmt. &amp; Dev. Corp. v. MPA Granada Highlands, LLC, 21 LCR 211, 216, 2019 Mass. LCR LEXIS 82, 2019 WL 1995535 (Mass. Land Ct. 2019). The court also&nbsp;found the easement was also extinguished by abandonment because the conduct of the easement owner showed an &#8220;intent to abandon the easement by acts inconsistent with the continued existence of the easement.&#8221; 21 LCR at 216. &#8220;Nonuse of the easement, standing alone, is not sufficient to constitute an abandonment by the owner of the dominant estate.&#8221; However, an &#8220;extended period of nonuse is a factor to consider in determining whether an easement has been abandoned,&#8221; especially when combined with &#8220;acquiescence to the use &hellip;<\/p>\n<p class=\"read-more\"> <a class=\"\" href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/2019\/08\/30\/abandonment-of-an-easement-shown-when-fence-closes-access-to-it\/\"> <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Abandonment of an easement shown when fence closes access to it<\/span> Read More &raquo;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[26,29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-223","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-adverse-possession","category-easements"],"featured_image_src":null,"featured_image_src_square":null,"author_info":{"display_name":"jsinger","author_link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/author\/jsinger\/"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=223"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}