Using a neighbor’s land for decades does not always make it yours. The Appeals Court upheld a ruling that homeowners gained title to the part of a boundary strip they had fenced and built on, but not to the open lawn next to it, where their proof was thin and the neighbor’s family also mowed. This is a published decision of the Appeals Court and is binding statewide.
What happened
Homeowners in Natick bought their house in 1972. They sued their neighbors to the north, claiming title by adverse possession to a strip of land between the two lots, or in the alternative a prescriptive easement over it. The parties agreed to a trial before a judge without a jury and also agreed, under a Superior Court rule, to give up detailed written findings, so the judge answered special questions instead. The homeowners showed that in the 1980s and 1990s they put a swing set, a shed, a boat, and a fence around their pool on the eastern end of the strip. For the rest of the strip, a largely open side and front yard, they relied mainly on photos of their mowing pattern and on memories from witnesses who were children decades earlier. A former owner of the neighboring lot testified that he and his son mowed and raked that area fairly continuously for a number of years, specifically to head off an adverse possession claim. The judge awarded the homeowners the pool area but not the rest.
What the court decided
In Aspell v. Raad, No. 24-P-874 (Mass. App. Ct. November 14, 2025), the Appeals Court affirmed.
A hard standard of review. Because the parties gave up detailed findings, the appeals court reviewed the decision the way it would review a jury verdict. It would reverse only if the result had no rational basis in the evidence.
Adverse possession. To gain title, you must prove use that is actual, open, notorious, exclusive and adverse for twenty years. Ryan v. Stavros, 348 Mass. 251 (1964); see G.L. c. 260, § 21. The claimant carries the burden on every element. The fence, shed and other improvements around the pool were the kind of permanent changes an owner makes, so the judge could award that area. For the open lawn, the testimony was inconsistent. One witness said the neighbor children played there only occasionally, while others said neighborhood children played and walked there all the time. The judge was free to believe some testimony and reject the rest.
The neighbor’s mowing mattered too. It undercut the claim that the homeowners’ use was exclusive. The homeowners argued, relying on Pugatch v. Stoloff, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 536 (1996), that occasional mowing by the record owner was too casual to interrupt their possession. The court rejected that argument for two reasons. First, the judge could find their own use of the lawn was never enough to start the twenty years running. Second, an owner who reenters does not have to meet every element of adverse possession. The reentry only has to be done openly on the land so the claimant has notice, and the judge could find the neighbor’s mowing was regular and open enough.
Prescriptive easement. An easement by prescription requires clear proof of use that is open, notorious, adverse, and continuous for at least twenty years, but not exclusive. Boothroyd v. Bogartz, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 40 (2007). So the neighbor’s mowing did not defeat that claim. But the same weak and inconsistent proof did. The judge could find the homeowners had not carried their burden.
What this means for you
If you are claiming land you have used for years, the kind of use matters. Fences, sheds, structures and other permanent changes are strong evidence. Mowing an open lawn, with nothing more, is weaker, especially if the record owner also mows it. Memories from decades ago, without photos or documents, may not carry the day.
If a neighbor is claiming part of your land, this case shows that regular, visible upkeep of your own property can matter. You do not need to prove every element of ownership to interrupt a claim, but your acts should be open and done on the land itself.
The case also carries a lesson about trial choices. Agreeing to skip detailed written findings can save time and money, but it makes an appeal much harder to win.
What to do now
- Gather dated photos, receipts, and permits showing what you built, planted or maintained on the disputed area, and when.
- Get a survey so you know exactly where the record boundary runs.
- List witnesses who saw the use over the full twenty years, and write down what each can say.
- If you are the record owner, keep using and maintaining the area openly, and keep records of it.
- Before trial, ask a lawyer how waiving detailed findings would affect any appeal.
If this is your situation, call Doubleday Law at (617) 575-2006 or tell us what happened. These cases move on short deadlines.
