WILLIS A.M. HENDLEY & Another v. ADAM DARISSE & Another.

── WILLIS A.M. HENDLEY & Another v. ADAM DARISSE & Another. ── Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008). COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT 25-P-615 WILLIS A.M. HENDLEY & another1 vs. ADAM DARISSE & another.2 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 In the context of a neighbors' dispute, we consider the interpretation of two easements, one express and one implied. We affirm. Background. In 1999, a developer received approval for the ten-lot subdivision that included the plots of land at issue. The defendants' predecessor in title, Debra Simon, acquired her property in August 2000 and the plaintiffs purchased an adjoining parcel in May 2001. Unbeknownst to either purchaser, the lot conveyed to Simon was configured such that it had insufficient frontage and was so close to the septic system on 1 Rubina Hendley. 2 Lauren Darisse, aka Lauren Munighan. the plaintiffs' lot it rendered that septic system noncompliant with the Massachusetts Environmental Code. In 2004, the plaintiffs and Simon attempted to solve both problems with a land swap. The agreement was memorialized in a plan endorsed as approval not required under subdivision control law (ANR plan) and deeds, all of which were recorded. In the deed from Simon to the plaintiffs (2004 deed), Simon gave the plaintiffs some of her land near the plaintiffs' septic system, bringing the plaintiffs' system into compliance. In exchange, the plaintiffs gave Simon some of their land along the street, providing frontage. Also included in the 2004 deed were two easements from Simon to the plaintiffs. Easement I, shown on the ANR plan as "Proposed Septic Access & Grading Easement," was "located on a trapezoid-shaped, grassy piece of land at the front of the [defendants'] property." Easement II, shown on the ANR plan as "Proposed Septic Access Easement," was "located on a rectangular-shaped, grassy piece of land that is approximately 95 percent on the [defendants'] property's driveway" and was "adjacent to the [plaintiffs'] property's septic system slope- retaining wall." The parties do not dispute the scope of Easement II. Buried under the land conveyed by Simon to the plaintiffs was "approximately 45 feet" of her underground electric and 2 telecommunications utilities. Neither party was aware of the location of the underground utilities at the time of conveyance, and the 2004 deed does not mention them. The defendants purchased their property from Simon in December 2016. At some point thereafter, a dispute arose between the parties about the scope of the easements and each party's access rights. The plaintiffs brought the dispute to the Land Court, and the case was tried before a judge. Relevant to this appeal, the judge found that Easement I benefited the plaintiffs' property and burdened the defendants' property "for the purposes of grading and for access in connection with the installation, repair, and maintenance of the septic system servicing the [plaintiffs'] prop