Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Easement Land Court Remand topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Appeals court hears dispute over shoreway easement, remand and MPM Builders doctrine

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Appellants argued the Land Court erred in denying a chance for discovery and factual development under the MPM Builders standard after the appeals court recognized different property rights in a shoreway; appellees urged the appeals court to uphold the Land Court's remand plan for a post-judgment process to determine necessary encroachments.

Joshua Siegel, counsel for appellants Paul and Gail Conway as trustees of the Riftwood Irrevocable Trust, asked the Appeals Court to remand the case to the Land Court for discovery and a factual resolution on whether a shoreway easement could be narrowed or relocated under MPM Builders LLC v. Dwyer.

Siegel said the Land Court's judgment left unresolved factual questions and that the Conways should be allowed to amend their complaint, take discovery and, if necessary, have a trial on whether the easement could be modified so the Conways could continue certain uses of the shoreway. He argued the Land Court's remand plan effectively foreclosed the process he sought.

David Yudi, appearing for the appellees who successfully sought removal of encroachments, told the panel the Conways had made the same MPM argument in Land Court briefing and the judge considered and rejected it. Yudi said the Land Court already has factual material from prior proceedings, photographs and a site view and is properly positioned to determine which encroachments, if any, must be removed; any plan the court orders will itself be reviewable on appeal.

Justice questions focused on whether Judge Vey's order was a final, appealable judgment and on whether the Land Court's procedures foreclose further factual development; both sides disputed the proper next steps. The Appeals Court took argument and will decide whether to remand for discovery or to permit the Land Court's plan to proceed.