Appeals court hears challenge to land court ruling that left concrete barrier in place on Pigeon Lane easement

Attorney Raynan Schechner told the panel that his clients, Ralph Amelia and Lisa Lyons as trustees, seek reversal of a Land Court ruling that dismissed their challenge to a concrete barrier placed across Pigeon Lane and which they say “completely obstructed the easement.”

The appeal centers on whether the 1983 Corcoran land court decision precludes plaintiffs from seeking relief now and whether the present record allowed the judge to grant the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. Schechner argued the barrier was placed without court or municipal approval and that the Land Court’s ruling applied res judicata/collateral estoppel improperly, foreclosing factual development the appellant says is necessary.

Why it matters: The case asks whether long‑standing limitations set by Corcoran (a land court decision referenced repeatedly in the record) bar a later owner from challenging a physical obstruction to a limited easement, and whether questions about a narrowly tailored, emergency‑access remedy require an evidentiary record rather than dismissal on the pleadings.

Schechner told the three‑justice panel that the Corcoran decision recognized easement rights limited to a 20‑foot section in the middle of Pigeon Lane but that Corcoran did not and could not be read to authorize permanent obstruction of whatever limited rights remain. “We are looking for our easement rights to be respected such as they are,” Schechner said, and he asked the court to allow factual development on how a controlled 20‑foot opening (signage, gate, limited monitoring) could provide emergency access without “overburdening” servient‑estate holders.

Appellees’ counsel Richard LeClaire told the court the land court correctly applied preclusive doctrines to bar the present claims. LeClaire said Corcoran and subsequent findings established that opening Pigeon Lane to access a 57‑lot subdivision would “manifestly overload” the historic uses for which the easement was created and that the rights at issue are limited, seasonal, and may not support everyday vehicular access. LeClaire urged that the plaintiffs’ present arguments duplicate issues litigated and decided decades ago.

The panel questioned both sides about the record. Justices pressed whether supplemental rulings referenced in the Corcoran record (described at one point in the Land Court appendix) are in the record before the Appeals Court; counsel for the appellants said those supplemental rulings are not in the appendix filed here. The panel also probed what remedies the plaintiffs seek and how monitoring or gating of a 20‑foot opening would work in practice.

Schechner pointed to MPM Builders and a 442 Mass. 93 citation (discussed in argument) for the proposition that a servient‑estate holder who plans to alter an easement should seek court approval rather than undertake self‑help. He argued the barrier was self‑help and that a judgment on the pleadings was therefore premature. LeClaire emphasized that Corcoran already addressed the central overburdening issue and that evidence in the historical record foreclosed plaintiffs’ present claims.

The panel concluded oral argument after questioning and moved on to the next case. The court did not issue a decision from the bench; the matter was taken under advisement.

Ending: The court thanked counsel and proceeded to the next argument; no decision was announced at the hearing.