## Facts

- A three-acre parcel in Orleans, Massachusetts was subdivided into three one-acre lots (9A, 9B, 9C), later conveyed by separate deeds in 1999.
- Each deed created reciprocal “view easements” over portions of the other lots, barring structures within the easement areas and granting easement holders the right to “trim and top” vegetation to maintain an unobstructed view of specified waters and scenic features.
- Patterson and Allen owned Lot 9B; Paul owned Lot 9A; the McGinleys owned Lot 9C.
- The Lot 9A home looked downhill across Lot 9B toward Little Pleasant Bay.
- Patterson and Allen planted trees and other vegetation along both side lot lines of Lot 9B.
- In 2003, Paul notified Patterson and Allen she would exercise easement rights to trim their planted vegetation to preserve her view.
- Patterson and Allen sued seeking (1) a declaration that the view easements expired after 30 years under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 184, § 23, and (2) rulings limiting the scope of protected views and trimming rights.

## Issues

1. Whether the view easements are “restrictions” subject to the default 30-year limit in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 184, § 23, or affirmative easements not limited by that statute.
2. Whether the easements protect only the views existing when created (1999) or also future, expanded views.
3. Whether the trimming right must be exercised annually and limited to one year’s growth, or may be done intermittently as needed to maintain the protected view.
4. Whether a declaratory judgment construing these easements applies to all lot owners in the three-lot subdivision, including the owners of Lot 9C.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Land Court’s judgment.
- The court held the view easements were affirmative easements and not subject to the 30-year limitation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 184, § 23.
- The court limited the protected view to the views that existed when the easements were created in 1999.
- The court held trimming and topping to maintain the 1999 views need not be annual and is not limited to one year’s prior growth.
- The court held the declaratory judgment applied equally to all parties, including the McGinleys.

## Legal Principles

- An easement that grants a right of physical entry and alteration of the servient land (such as trimming and topping vegetation) is an affirmative easement, even if it also contains prohibitory terms (such as a no-structures clause).
- The default 30-year duration limit in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 184, § 23 applies to certain land-use restrictions; it does not apply to affirmative easements of the type authorizing entry and cutting.
- Easement scope is construed to effect the parties’ intent as expressed in the instrument and the circumstances at creation; a “maintain” view right protects the views existing at creation rather than an open-ended right to expand views over time.
- A construction of identical reciprocal servitudes within a common scheme may be declared in a manner binding on all similarly situated parties to ensure consistent rights and obligations.

## Conclusion

The court treated the subdivision’s view rights as affirmative easements because they authorized entry and vegetation cutting, placing them outside the 30-year statutory limit for certain restrictions, and it confined enforcement to maintaining the views as they existed in 1999 while allowing trimming as necessary rather than on an annual, incremental basis.


Patterson v. Paul, 448 Mass. 658, 863 N.E.2d 527 (Mass. 2007)