Landowner brought action against Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), seeking declaratory and equitable relief as to MassDOT’s contention that its purported taking of landowner’s property merely confirmed rights that MassDOT already held under previous taking.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Superior Court granted summary judgment to MassDOT. Landowner appealed to Appeals Court, and the Supreme Judicial Court transferred case on Supreme Judicial Court’s own motion.
The Supreme Judicial Court held that:
- Whether easement has been established by eminent domain or granted privately, as general rule, doubts as to extent of restriction in easement should be resolved in favor of freedom of land from servitude, and
- Easement condemned by MassDOT’s predecessor-in-interest for relocating railroad facilities displaced by road construction project did not encompass project for construction of test track and 6,000 square foot building for storage of railway vehicles on burdened land, and thus such project constituted an additional taking for which compensation was required.
Whether easement has been established by eminent domain or granted privately, as general rule, doubts as to extent of restriction in easement should be resolved in favor of freedom of land from servitude.
Easement condemned by Department of Public Works, the predecessor-in-interest to Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), for relocating railroad facilities displaced by road construction project did not encompass project for construction of test track and 6,000 square foot building for storage of railway vehicles on burdened land, and thus such project constituted an additional taking for which compensation was required; easement was limited in space and time by air rights reserved to fee holder, providing for railroad to relocate a single track to property and thereafter fixing scope of easement to the right of way occupied by track and vertical dimension above it, and overall purpose set out in easement was to relocate the facilities being displaced.
License agreement entered into between Commonwealth and Department of Public Works, the predecessor-in-interest to Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), which permitted easement condemned by Department for relocating railroad facilities displaced by road construction project to be used by railroad for ancillary activities that constituted railroad purposes, could not unilaterally expand scope of permissible use of the burdened land beyond what was stated in the taking.
Where a right of way, or other easement, is granted by deed without fixed and defined limits, the practical location and use of such way or easement by the grantee under the deed, acquiesced in by the grantor at the time of the grant and for a long time subsequent thereto, operate as an assignment of the right, and are deemed to be that which was intended to be conveyed by the deed, and are the same, in legal effect, as if it had been fully described by the terms of the grant.
Easement condemned by Department of Public Works, the predecessor-in-interest to Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), for relocating railroad facilities displaced by road construction project, providing for railroad to relocate a single track to property and thereafter fixing scope of easement to the right of way occupied by track and vertical dimension above it, did not give railroad a right to occupy the entire parcel of burdened land in perpetuity; rather, railroad only possessed a right to place its tracks and facilities in the place of its choosing on the burdened land.