Sometimes, but it is hard. Filing an appeal does not automatically stop a judgment that lets a neighbor keep using a road or trails on your land. The Appeals Court upheld a decision refusing to pause such a judgment, because the landowners could not show that their odds on appeal outweighed the harm a pause would cause the neighbor and the public. This is an unpublished Appeals Court decision under Rule 23.0, which courts may cite as persuasive but not as binding precedent.
Update (October 2026): In a later decision in the same dispute, the Appeals Court upheld the prescriptive easement over the trails and rejected the argument that the unpleaded easement theory was an unfair surprise. It vacated only the part of the judgment that barred every change to the lane, including changes that would not harm the horses, and sent that part back for a narrower order. 40 Meadowbrook Lane Realty LLC v. Andress, No. 24-P-1426 (Mass. App. Ct. January 9, 2026) (Rule 23.0 decision).
What happened
After a trial without a jury in the Superior Court, a judge found that the plaintiff, which operates a commercial horse stable, had a thirty foot right of way along the full length of a lane in Norton and a prescriptive easement over horse trails on the defendants’ land. The judge permanently barred the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s use of the lane and the trails. The defendants asked the trial court to stay the judgment while they appealed, and the request was denied. They then asked a single justice of the Appeals Court for a stay. The single justice also said no, and the defendants appealed that ruling to a panel.
What the court decided
In 40 Meadowbrook Lane Realty, LLC v. Andress, No. 24-P-1112 (Mass. App. Ct. August 18, 2025) (Rule 23.0 decision), the Appeals Court affirmed the single justice’s order.
The test for a stay. A party asking to pause a judgment during an appeal must ordinarily show four things: a likelihood of success on appeal, a likelihood of irreparable harm without a stay, no substantial harm to others if the stay issues, and no harm to the public interest. C.E. v. J.E., 472 Mass. 1016 (2015). These factors track the test for a preliminary injunction, and the judge must weigh the risk of harm to each side in light of each side’s chance of winning. Packaging Industries Group, Inc. v. Cheney, 380 Mass. 609 (1980).
The balance of harms favored the neighbor. The judgment preserved a pattern of use that had existed for more than four decades and that the defendants knew about before they bought their land. Nothing in the judgment stopped them from developing their property in a way consistent with how the land was used when they bought it. A stay, by contrast, would have disrupted the plaintiff’s stable business and limited access for local riders who use the trails for recreation and to reach conservation land.
The appeal argument was not strong enough. The defendants argued that the prescriptive easement theory was never pleaded, came as a surprise, and should have been kept out of evidence. The court noted that the heart of the case was the history of ownership and use of the lane and trails, so evidence of that use was relevant. Trial judges have broad discretion over evidence, and overturning an evidence ruling is a heavy burden. Given that, the defendants’ chance of winning on that point did not outweigh the harms.
The merits are still open. The court stressed that denying a stay does not decide the appeal. The defendants remained free to press the same arguments on a full record before the panel that hears the appeal.
What this means for you
If you lose a property case about a right of way, a shared driveway or trails, the judgment usually takes effect even while you appeal. Courts will pause it only if you can show a real chance of winning and that the balance of harms is on your side. A use that has gone on for decades, and that you knew about when you bought, makes that balance hard to tip.
If you are the neighbor who won the right to keep using a path or road, this decision helps you. A long history of use, plus harm to your business or to the public if the use stops, can keep the judgment in force during the appeal.
Either way, the stay fight is separate from the appeal itself. Losing the stay does not mean you will lose the appeal.
What to do now
- Before you buy land, ask about paths, roads and trails that neighbors or the public use, and look for recorded rights of way.
- If you lose a judgment and want to appeal, ask the trial court for a stay first, and be ready to explain both your odds on appeal and the harm you face.
- Gather proof of harm on both sides, including business impact and any public use of the land.
- Follow the judgment while a stay request is pending. Interfering with a use the court protected can lead to more trouble.
- Keep the appeal deadlines separate from the stay request, and meet both.
If this is your situation, call Doubleday Law at (617) 575-2006 or tell us what happened. These cases move on short deadlines.
