Yes. If neighbors use a path across your land openly, continuously and without permission for at least twenty years, they can gain a permanent legal right to keep using it, called a prescriptive easement. In this case the Appeals Court upheld trail rights for the owner of a neighboring horse farm. It also held that the trial judge went too far by barring every change to a shared lane, including changes that would not harm the horses that use it. This is an unpublished Appeals Court decision under Rule 23.0. Courts may cite it as persuasive, but it is not binding precedent.
What happened
Two neighbors in Norton own abutting properties. One property is leased to a horse farm and riding school. The other is a large tract of undeveloped land, reached by a narrow private dirt lane that runs along the farm’s boundary. Riders from the farm used the lane and two trails, and parts of those trails cross the undeveloped land. The new owners of that land planned to build two homes and to widen and pave the lane and add utilities. The neighbors blocked each other’s access, and the farm owner sued. After a trial without a jury, a Superior Court judge ruled for the farm owner on the trails and barred the landowners from widening the lane, changing its grade or installing utilities.
What the court decided
In 40 Meadowbrook Lane Realty LLC v. Andress, No. 24-P-1426 (Mass. App. Ct. January 9, 2026) (Rule 23.0 decision), the Appeals Court affirmed most of the judgment and sent one part back.
The trails. A prescriptive easement requires use of another’s land that is continuous and uninterrupted, open and notorious, and adverse, for at least twenty years. White v. Hartigan, 464 Mass. 400, 413 (2013). Unlike adverse possession, the use does not have to be exclusive. Boothroyd v. Bogartz, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 40, 44 n.9 (2007). The judge credited testimony that the trails had been used in their current location since the 1970s.
The landowners argued the use was permissive, pointing to a “revocation of license” their predecessors recorded in 2019. The court rejected that argument. There was no evidence anyone had ever given permission in the first place, so there was no license to revoke. A recorded revocation did not prove earlier permission.
The pleadings. The farm owner’s complaint never claimed a prescriptive easement. The court held that did not matter. The landowners’ own counterclaim put title to the trail land at issue, the joint pretrial memorandum mentioned the easement, and the issue was tried throughout. Under Mass. R. Civ. P. 15 (b), failing to amend the pleadings does not affect the result on an issue the parties actually tried. K.G.M. Custom Homes, Inc. v. Prosky, 468 Mass. 247, 257 (2014).
The lane. A 2001 stipulation and judgment between earlier owners recognized a right of way over the lane but barred surface improvements that would harm the horses that customarily use it. The landowners did not challenge that stipulation, and the court held it defines the scope of their easement. Based on testimony the judge credited, the proposed changes would harm the horses, so they were not allowed. G.L. c. 187, § 5 gives abutters with deeded access an implied right to install utility lines in a private way, but only if the work does not unreasonably obstruct the way or interfere with others’ existing use. The judge went too far, though, by banning all changes to the lane’s width, grade and utilities, even ones that would not harm the horses. That part of the judgment was vacated and sent back for a modified injunction.
The boundary. The court also agreed the landowners had not proved where their boundary was.
What this means for you
If you own land, long use by neighbors can turn into a legal right, even if you never agreed to it and even if several people used the path. Buying the land does not reset the clock. In this case, use by earlier owners counted toward the twenty years.
Recording a document that “revokes” permission will not help if no permission was ever given.
If you hold a right of way, its scope may be limited by an old stipulation or court judgment between earlier owners. The utility statute helps, but it does not override the existing use by others. On the other side, the court would not let the judgment freeze the lane entirely. Changes that do not harm the existing use may still be allowed.
What to do now
- Pull your deed, your chain of title and any recorded plans, stipulations or old judgments that mention the way or path.
- Write down who has used the path, for what, and since when. Find long-time neighbors who remember.
- If you have given permission, put it in writing. Permissive use is not adverse use.
- Get a survey before you build, block or improve anything near a shared boundary or lane.
- Think twice before blocking access. In this case, both sides blocked each other and the dispute escalated.
If this is your situation, call Doubleday Law at (617) 575-2006 or tell us what happened. These cases move on short deadlines.
