## Facts

- A landowner acquired an appurtenant right-of-way in 1941 described as a “right of way along the cartway to Pine Street” across what later became a developer’s parcel.
- The deed fixed the easement’s location, branching to provide access to the dominant parcel at three points, and did not address relocation.
- The developer obtained approval to subdivide its land into seven residential lots; the fixed easement interfered with development on three lots.
- The developer proposed, at its own expense, constructing new access ways to provide unrestricted access from Pine Street to the dominant parcel in the same general areas and asserted the new routes would be as convenient as the existing cartway.
- The easement holder refused consent, preferring to keep the right-of-way in its historic location and use.
- The developer filed a declaratory-judgment action in the Massachusetts Land Court seeking recognition of a unilateral right to relocate the easement.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Land Court ruled for the easement holder under then-existing Massachusetts law and dismissed the action; direct appellate review was granted.

## Issues

1. Whether a servient estate owner may unilaterally relocate a deed-fixed easement without the dominant owner’s consent.
2. If unilateral relocation is permitted, what limitations must apply to protect the dominant owner’s rights.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court adopted Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 4.8(3) as the governing rule in Massachusetts.
- The court held that a servient owner may relocate an easement at its own expense without the easement holder’s consent if the relocation (1) does not significantly lessen the easement’s utility, (2) does not increase the burdens on the easement holder’s use and enjoyment, and (3) does not frustrate the purpose of the easement.
- The court vacated the Land Court judgment and remanded for determination whether the proposed relocation satisfied the Restatement standard.
- The court noted the Land Court correctly applied prior Massachusetts common law requiring mutual consent, but changed the rule going forward.

## Legal Principles

- A servient owner may change the location of an easement unilaterally, but only at the servient owner’s expense and only if the change does not:
  - significantly lessen the easement’s utility,
  - increase the burdens on the easement holder’s use and enjoyment, or
  - frustrate the purpose for which the easement was created.
- The unilateral relocation doctrine is not a license for arbitrary changes; when disputed, the relocation’s reasonableness and compliance with the three limitations are subject to judicial determination.
- The Restatement approach is intended to reduce the risk that an easement will unnecessarily prevent later beneficial use of the servient land while preserving the dominant owner’s practical benefit of the servitude.

## Conclusion

Massachusetts replaced its mutual-consent rule for relocating fixed easements by adopting Restatement § 4.8(3), permitting unilateral relocation by the servient owner at its own expense when the relocation does not materially impair the easement holder’s utility, increase burdens, or defeat the easement’s purpose, and remanded for application of that standard to the proposed new routes.


M.P.M. Builders, LLC v. Dwyer, 442 Mass. 87, 809 N.E.2d 1053 (Mass. 2004)