June 1, 2020

June 01, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 30, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 29, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Appeals Court Registers Objection to Superior Court Judgment Affecting Registered Land

The Appeals Court’s decision yesterday in Johnson v. Christ Apostle Church, Mt. Bethel (pdf) is a useful reminder that the Land Court’s jurisdiction over cases affecting title to registered land is exclusiveJohnson involved a dispute between the plaintiff homeowner and a neighboring church over Johnson’s longstanding use of a driveway on the church’s property for parking and for access to Johnson’s property. After years of amicable relations, in 2013 the church erected a six-foot fence along the property line that prevented Johnson from continuing to use the driveway. Johnson filed suit in Superior Court alleging that the fence was an unlawful “spite fence” under M.G.L. c. 49, § 21, which makes such fences a form of private nuisance. She also brought claims of negligence and adverse possession. The case went to trial solely on the nuisance claim, and the judge found for Johnson and ordered the church to install a series of gates in the fence to restore Johnson’s access.

There was a wrinkle, however, and it proved dispositive. The church’s land is registered, and under M.G.L. 185, § 1(a 1/2) (yes, that’s Section 1 a-and-a-half), the Land Court has “exclusive original jurisdiction” over complaints affecting title to registered land. On appeal, though neither party raised the issue, the Appeals Court vacated the judgment because, by effectively granting Johnson an easement over the church’s land, the judgment affected the church’s registered title and the Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to impose such a remedy. As the Appeals Court noted, the mere presence of registered land in a case doesn’t deprive the Superior Court of jurisdiction. The Superior Court can and does hear a range of cases that involve registered land in some fashion (for example, contract claims). It is only precluded from entering judgments affecting title to the land in question. So the Appeals Court remanded the case for transfer to the Land Court, where Johnson’s claims will live to see another day.

©2020 Pierce Atwood LLP. All rights reserved.


About this Author

Donald R. Pinto, Jr., Pierce Atwood, litigation lawyer

Don Pinto has more than 30 years of experience as a civil litigator, with a focus on complex real estate and land use disputes. He handles cases at the trial and appellate levels in the state and federal courts and before administrative agencies. Outside the courtroom Don has successfully resolved many disputes through negotiation, mediation, and arbitration.

Don is also the founder, editor, and one of several contributors to Massachusetts Dirt and Development Law, the firm's real estate blog.


(617) 488-8175