Posts tagged "1100717"

Perry v. Nemira, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-007-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030;   15-P-828                                        Appeals Court   DON PERRY  vs.  ADA NEMIRA & another.[1]     No. 15-P-828.   Suffolk.     October 5, 2016. – January 30, 2017.   Present:  Meade, Milkey, & Kinder, JJ.     Easement.  Real Property, Easement, Deed, Adverse possession.  Way, Private.       Civil action commenced in the Land Court Department on December 21, 2011.   The case was heard by Alexander H. Sands, III, J.     Andrew S. Lee (Kenneth D. Wacks & Michelle A. McHale also present) for the defendants. Don Perry, pro se.     MEADE, J.  The plaintiff, Don Perry, and the defendants, Tomas and Ada Nemira,[2] own partially abutting properties known as 9B Maple Lane and 12 Maple Lane, respectively, located in a densely developed residential area of Hull.  When the Nemiras fenced off what they believed to be part of their property, controversy arose regarding the parties’ rights in and over three right of ways (ROW) abutting or in the vicinity of the parties’ properties and leading to the public way, formerly known as Center Hill Avenue.  Perry commenced this action claiming that (i) the fence blocks his right of ways, (ii) he and his predecessors have incorporated a portion of what have been called ROW 1 and ROW 3 into his front yard, and any rights the Nemiras had in those portions of ROWs 1 and 3 have been extinguished by adverse possession, (iii) he has acquired a prescriptive easement to turn around and park on certain sections of the Nemira property, and (iv) certain boundary lines in the deed description to the Nemira property and on a site plan dated November 24, 2010, are wrong.  Perry sought an order to restrain the Nemiras from maintaining a fence on any portion of the disputed ROWs or any portion of Perry’s property. For their part, the Nemiras denied that Perry has acquired any prescriptive rights to use their property or block ROWs 1 and 3.  They also denied that their fence blocked Perry’s right of way, and in counterclaims, they contended that Perry has no vehicular right of way over ROW 3 or if he did, it has been extinguished by nonuse. Following a trial, preceded by a view, the judge drafted a careful and detailed decision determining the rights of the parties.  The parties’ deeded rights over the ROWs became a […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 30, 2017 at 10:16 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,