Appeals court hears dispute over registered-land easement and scope of Jackson v. Naught exceptions

The Appeals Court heard argument in Maureen Mertili LLC v. Idlewild Acres LLC, docket 24P321, over whether registered land carries an easement that benefits adjacent unregistered parcels and whether a registration petition or plan places purchasers on notice.

William Henchy, counsel for Maureen Mertili LLC, told the panel the registration petition expressly granted a right of way "to the land of Emma A. G. Foster," and argued that (1) the registration certificate and incorporated plan should have put a purchaser on inquiry notice under Jackson v. Naught and related cases, and (2) if not the certificate, then the petition and other instruments supplied constructive or actual notice. Henchy urged the court to apply Jackson exceptions and found support in an express easement appearing in deeds to adjacent parcels.

Lisa Goodhart, for Idlewild, countered that Jackson v. Naught and the registered-land regime are designed to give purchasers one reliable place to look — the certificate and plan — and that courts should not require searching petitions. Goodhart said the 1931 plan shows the way in question dead-ending on a different parcel and does not include Martilly’s cranberry-bog parcels on the plan; accordingly, she argued, the registration statute and precedent foreclose imposing unlisted encumbrances on registered titles.

The panel questioned both sides on whether the petition for registration is a document purchasers must consult and probed factual points about which parcels were shown on the 1931 plan and whether Idlewild had actual notice of any unregistered way. Henchy emphasized that the deed language and historical use supported an easement claim; Goodhart said trial-court findings and Jackson doctrine counsel in favor of upholding registered-title certainty.

The court took the matter under advisement.