## Facts

- In 1936, Thomas Murray granted Plymouth County Electric Company (Commonwealth Electric’s predecessor) an easement for transmission lines, but the deed did not clearly identify which of Murray’s two parcels was burdened.
- In 1944, Murray’s estate registered both parcels in the Land Court, resulting in certificates for Lot 1 (north side of Plum Hill Avenue) and Lot 2 (south side).
- The registration decree and certificates identified the 1936 pole easement as encumbering Lot 2, not Lot 1.
- Despite the registered records, the utility’s poles and wires were installed and remained visibly located on Lot 1, supplying electricity to improvements on that lot.
- Leslie H. MacCardell later acquired Lot 1 as registered land; her certificate of title for Lot 1 contained no notation of any utility easement.
- After a service request involving Lot 2, Commonwealth discovered the inconsistency between the physical location of the lines (Lot 1) and the registered easement notation (Lot 2).
- Commonwealth petitioned the Land Court to amend MacCardell’s certificate for Lot 1 to add the claimed easement, arguing she had actual knowledge because the poles and wires were apparent and served the property.

## Issues

1. Whether a registered landowner’s certificate of title may be amended to add a utility easement omitted from the certificate based solely on the owner’s awareness of visible utility poles and service on the land.
2. What level of “actual knowledge” is required to bind a registered landowner to an unregistered easement interest.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed judgment for MacCardell and denied the utility’s request to amend the certificate.
- The court held Commonwealth failed to prove MacCardell had the “actual knowledge” required to overcome the conclusiveness of registered title.
- The visible presence of poles and wires, and the fact that they supplied electricity to the property, did not establish actual knowledge of a legally enforceable easement absent record notice on the certificate or other proof of awareness of the specific easement right.

## Legal Principles

- In the registered land system, the certificate of title is generally conclusive as to interests affecting the land, and purchasers may rely on it.
- Unregistered interests may bind a registered owner only within narrow exceptions, including where the owner has actual knowledge of the specific interest or where the certificate contains facts that would prompt reasonable further inquiry.
- “Actual knowledge” requires more than notice of a physical condition or use; it requires knowledge of the existence and legal character of the claimed servitude.
- Absent certificate notations that trigger inquiry, a registered owner is not required to investigate off-certificate records to discover and correct registration errors.
- The risk of registration mistakes regarding easements is borne by the party whose claimed rights depend on proper registration, absent proof that the current registered owner knew of the specific unrecorded interest.

## Conclusion

Because MacCardell’s registered certificate contained no utility easement and Commonwealth proved only that she could see poles and received service, the court refused to treat her as having actual knowledge of an easement and declined to amend her certificate of title.


Commonwealth Electric Co. v. MacCardell, 450 Mass. 48, 876 N.E.2d 405 (Mass. 2007)