Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property And Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court hears dispute over ‘paper’ Beach Avenue, chain of title and derelict‑fee statute
Summary
In a dispute over ownership of an undeveloped strip of Beach Avenue in Hull, petitioners argue the derelict‑fee statute applies and that historical deeds did not convey fee interest to the town; the town says Hobart and the 1913 conveyance confirm municipal title and urged the court to respect the land court’s ruling.
Special counsel Nathaniel Stevens and counsel for the town of Hull told the appeals panel the litigation centers on whether 19th‑century deeds and later transactions fit within the derelict‑fee statute’s exceptions and whether the land court correctly concluded the Ferraras hold fee title to a 60‑foot portion of the one‑mile length of Beach Avenue.
The town urged the court to uphold the land court’s ruling. Stevens said the town maintains fee interests in many of the streets shown on the 1885–1887 subdivision plan and that the disputed area is part of the town’s interest necessary for dune‑protection and coastal resiliency projects. Town counsel described state grant‑funded dune work and the municipality’s interest in controlling walkways that cross and degrade dune systems.
Attorney Adam Brodsky, representing John and Kathleen Ferrara, asked the panel to affirm the land court’s judgment that the Ferraras hold fee simple title to the undeveloped portion of Beach Avenue between their house lot and beach lot. Brodsky said that the 1886–1887 deeds and the chain of title support the Ferraras’ registered‑land claims and that the derelict‑fee statute’s exceptions did not apply.
Justices questioned both sides on the practical consequences of fee ownership over a strip of beach access — whether private fee ownership would prevent public beach access, what conservation and zoning rules would allow or prohibit on the dune, and whether the Hobart decision (construing earlier deeds with respect to Manomet Avenue) controls similar conveyances here. Counsel acknowledged factual and documentary complexities: multiple transfers across decades, some registered land entries, limited town records from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and the fact the disputed area is sand, beach grass and dune habitat with public use along part of the shore.
No ruling was announced from the bench. The case tests the derelict‑fee statute’s retroactive operation against deed language, reservation clauses and the historical chain of title for municipal versus private rights in a coastal paper street.
