Commonwealth Electric Co, v. Maccardell
876 N.E.2d 405 (2007)
Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Murray owned two parcels of land and granted an easement to the P's predecessor, Plymouth County Electric Company, for the installation of transmission lines. The easement deed did not provide compass directions, it merely mentioned that the land was located in Duxbury and that the pole lines could 'enter from land now or formerly of Plum Hill Avenue and cross to land now or formerly of Chester L. Churchill.' On April 13, 1944, Reagan, administrator of the Murray estate, filed an action to register and confirm the title to the two parcels of land on Plum Hill Avenue. The Land Court entered a decree that confirmed and registered the two lots to Reagan. After the decree had been entered, the Plymouth registry district of the Land Court issued a certificate of title to Reagan. Both the certificate of title and the Land Court decree of registration state that 'lot 2 is subject to pole easements as set forth in a deed given by Thomas Murray to the Plymouth County Electric Co., dated June 5, 1936, duly recorded.' D inhabits and owns Lot 1, which contains the actual poles. The poles supply electricity to both D's property and the adjacent property owned by Petro. Neither certificate of title refers to the poles or utility easement that P is claiming. Petro requested that P increase the level of electrical service to his home. To do this, a transformer might need to be installed on a pole located on d's property. P found that there was an easement on the certificate of title for Lot 2 but no easement on the certificate of title for Lot 1. P petitioned the Land Court to amend D's certificate of title for Lot 1 to hold the easement. The Land Court title examiner found that the easement granted by Murray to Plymouth County Electric Company in 1944 should have been registered as an encumbrance on Lot 1 and not Lot 2. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co