Brown, et al. v. Kalicki, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-153-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 15-P-923 Appeals Court PETER R. BROWN, trustee,[1] & others[2] vs. JAN H. KALICKI & another.[3] No. 15-P-923. Suffolk. June 13, 2016. – October 20, 2016. Present: Cohen, Milkey, & Massing, JJ. Real Property, Registered land, Littoral property, Certificate of title, Easement. Land Court, Registration proceedings. Adverse Possession and Prescription. Civil actions commenced in the Land Court Department on September 29, 2011. The cases were heard by Alexander H. Sands, III, J., on a motion for summary judgment. Diane C. Tillotson for the defendants. Brian M. Hurley for the plaintiffs. COHEN, J. The plaintiffs are the respective owners of three parcels of registered land located at 3, 7, and 11 Davis Lane, a private way in the town of Harwich (town). These parcels extend in a more or less southerly direction from Davis Lane to the shoreline of Nantucket Sound. Over time, the shoreline has changed, and the parcels have accreted[4] significant portions of formerly submerged land. On September 29, 2011, the parcel owners filed supplemental petitions in the Land Court, seeking to amend their certificates of title. Jan H. Kalicki and John Michael Hershey (interveners) moved to intervene as defendants, alleging that they had acquired prescriptive rights over the accreted land. Upon informal consolidation of the cases for decision on the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment, the motion judge rejected the objections of the interveners and granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs. The question for the judge was whether the accreted beachfront took on the status of registered land as it formed, or whether registered status could be obtained only through court proceedings to amend the certificates of title. The judge ruled that the accreted beachfront automatically became registered, and, therefore, was protected from the interveners’ claims that they have a prescriptive easement to use the beach area on the plaintiffs’ land. Applying well-established standards of review,[5] we affirm. Background. The material facts are not in dispute. The land comprising the plaintiffs’ parcels was registered in the 1920’s and 1930’s.[6] Under the terms of each certificate of title, “[a]ll of said boundaries, except the water lines, are determined by the Court to be located as shown on” the associated Land Court plan. Each of the registration plans shows and identifies the southern boundary of the subject […]