Murphy v. Donovan

• Decision Date: 11 August 1976
• Citation: 352 N.E.2d 210,4 Mass.App.Ct. 519
• Parties: Arthur T. MURPHY et al. v. Brendon J. DONOVAN et al.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Page 210

352 N.E.2d 210

4 Mass.App.Ct. 519

Arthur T. MURPHY et al.

v. Brendon J. DONOVAN et al.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Barnstable.

Argued March 8, 1976.

Decided Aug. 11, 1976.

Cortland A. Mathers, Brockton, for Arthur T. Murphy and another.

Marcus E. Cohn, Boston, for Jerome Horwitz.

Edward M. Mahlowitz, Cambridge, for Miriam Horwitz.

Laurence F. Simcock, for Brendon J. Donovan and another, submitted a brief.

Before KEVILLE, GRANT and ARMSTRONG, JJ.

KEVILLE, Justice.

In 1951 Peter and Mary Dalton recorded the subdivision plan of a tract of land in Chatham which is reproduced on the following page as figure 1. ¹ In 1954 the plaintiffs, Arthur T. and Eileen M. Murphy purchased from the Daltons lots 20, 22, and an 'unnumbered parcel' (the locus) which is shown as the shaded area on figure 2. In 1964 the defendants Brendon Donovan and Miriam Horwitz acquired lots 16--19, 21, and 23 from the heirs of Peter Dalton. Late in the same year, as the result of a dispute concerning the boundary between lots 18 and 20, Mr. Murphy brought a bill in equity to enjoin Mr. Donovan from trespassing on the Murphy property. ² Mr. Donovan (later joined by his wife) sought by counterclaim (see Superior Court Rule 32 (1954)) to establish an easement to use the locus as a part of Lantern Lane.

FIGURE 1

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

FIGURE 2

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

Nothing is to be gained by a recital in depth ofthe more than a decade of litigation which has followed. It is sufficient to state that the case comes to this court on the Murphys' appeal (taken November 9, 1973) from a final decree entered on the Donovans' counterclaims; ³ the portion of that decree which the Murphys attack declared that their interest in the locus is 'subject to the use of Lantern Lane by all abutters and is hereby made a part of said Lantern Lane, Chatham, Massachusetts, as shown on' the 1951 subdivision plan.

We have before us a confirmed master's report, a report of the evidence taken at a hearing in 1968 before a judge of the Superior Court, ⁴ the judge's findings on that evidence and the transcript of a hearing in 1973 before a second judge at which no evidence was taken. The second judge entered the final decree and adopted the findings of the first judge as his report of the material facts. In deciding this case it is our duty to examine all of the evidence and to exercise our own judgment. We treat the master's subsidiary findings of fact (which are neither inconsistent, contradictory, nor plainly wrong) as binding (Selectmen of Hatfield v. Garvey, 362 Mass. 821, 825, 291 N.E.2d 593 (1973)) and accept as true the findings of the judge based on oral testimony unless they are shown to be plainly wrong. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts Life ins. Co., 356 Mass. 287, 288, 249 N.E.2d 586 (1969). Gorman v. Stein, --- Mass.App. ---, ---, ^a 295 N.E.2d 178 (1973). We may find facts in addition to those found by the master and the judge. Uliasz v. Gillette, 357 Mass. 96, 97--98, 256 N.E.2d 290 (1970).

The Daltons purchased the five and one-half acre tract of land shown on the 1951 subdivision plan in 1947. In 1948 they conveyed that portion of the tract which appears on that plan as lots 7--8, 10--11, and 13--14 to one Elizabeth Montague by a deed which referred to an earlier subdivision plan of the tract recorded in 1948 by the Daltons. In the same year Montague reconveyed this land to the Daltons and William and Margaret Herlihy as joint tenants. In 1950 the Daltons conveyed, also by a deed referring to the 1948 subdivision plan, land which appears on the 1951 subdivision plan as lots 1 and 4 to one Charles Kolb and his wife. The subdivision plan recorded by the Daltons in 1951 was approved by the Chatham planning board in April of that year. The rules and regulations of the planning board at that time required that dead-end streets (e.g., Lantern Lane) 'must have a rotary turning area at the dead end having a property line radius of not less than 40 feet.' It does not appear from the record why the planning board approved the Daltons' subdivision plan in spite of its failure to comply with this regulation. ⁵

By 1954 houses had been built on one of the Kolb lots and on at least some of the lots which the Daltons and Herlihys owned as joint tenants. Of those lots to which the Daltons retained sole title in 1954 (lots 2, 5, and 16--23) all but lot 2, on which the Daltons' house was located, were undeveloped. Lantern Lane east of lots 16 and 17 was apparently no more than a primitive dirt road. The locus was covered with underbrush and approximately six large trees grew on it.

In January or early February of 1954 Mr. Murphy, who with his wife owned and lived on property which bordered on the northerly boundary of lot 22, discussed with Mr. and Mrs. Dalton the possibility of purchasing a portion of the Daltons' property. Murphy had seen the 1951 subdivision plan, and asked Dalton what the locus was. Dalton answered that it was 'just a job'; he did not refer to the locus as a turnaround for use in connection with Lantern Lane. Murphy offered to purchase lots 20, 22, and the locus, stating that he wanted to buy a parcel that was as nearly rectangular as possible and that he did not want any 'jogs' in it. Dalton replied that he owned enough houses between Cockle Cove Road and lots 16 and 17, that he had no further interest in developing lots 16--23, and therefore would be glad to sell the locus as well as lots 20 and 22. Murphy and Dalton later walked over the property Murphy was to purchase. When they came to the locus, whose northwestern and southwestern corners were marked by cement bounds which Murphy saw, Dalton said, 'Mr. Murphy, this is part of your land.'

On February 25, 1954, the Daltons gave the plaintiffs a deed which conveyed to them 'Lots 20 and 22 and an unnumbered parcel at the Southeasterly corner of Lot 22 as shown on' the 1951 subdivision plan. ⁶ The deed gave the Murphys 'a right of way for all purposes to and from Cockle Cove Road over Lantern Lane as shown on said Plan' but was silent as to any easement reserved by the Daltons to pass over the locus. Mr. Dalton drew the deed.

Immediately after the Murphys purchased lots 20, 22, and the locus, Mr. Murphy placed a fence along the southern boundary of the locus. This fence has since been replaced by another fence which runs along the southern boundaries of lots 20 and 22 as well. Murphy also cleared the underbrush off the locus and has periodically cut the grass and weeds with his lawnmower. The trees, however, remain and render the locus impassable to motor vehicles.

On May 28, 1964, the heirs of Peter Dalton conveyed lots 16--19, 21, and 23 as shown on the 1951 subdivision plan to Donovan and the defendant Miriam Horwitz as tenants in common. The deed carried with it 'an appurtenant right of way over Lantern Lane from Cockle Cove Road, to be used for all purposes for which public ways are used in the Town of Chatham, including the right to install and maintain all public utility services within the confines of said Lantern Lane.' Donovan and Horwitz were partners in a business enterprise which apparently included the construction and sale of houses. After the purchase Donovan and Horwitz began the construction of a house on lot 18.

In 1965 Donovan and Horwitz recorded a subdivision plan which revised the 1951 subdivision plan with respect to lots 17, 19, 21 and 23. There is no evidence what action, if any, the Chatham planning board took on this plan. ⁷ The plan shifted the eastern boundary of lot 17, as shown on the 1951 subdivision plan, approximately one foot to the west; shifted the eastern boundary of lot 19 approximately ten feet to the east; and combined the remainder of lot 21 with lot 23 to form one lot. The resulting lots were labeled 17A, 19A, and 23A, respectively.

It appears from statements made by the attorneys for the Murphys, Donovans, and Horwitzes at the 1973 hearing before the judge who entered the final decree and from documents appended to motions made by various of the parties that, following the 1968 hearing, the partnership of Mr. Donovan and Mrs. Horwitz was dissolved. As a result, the Horwitzes acquired sole title to lot 16 on the 1951 subdivision plan and lots 17A and 19A on the 1965 subdivision plan. They thereafter conveyed lot 16 to Richard and Nancy Renehan and lots 17A and 19A to Paul and Catherine Nagy.

On the record before us it is uncertain exactly what interest the Donovans now own in the property purchased by Donovan and Mrs. Horwitz in 1965. It does appear that the Donovans (or one of them) have title to lot 23A as shown on the 1965 subdivision plan. In addition the Donovans (or one of them) may have title to lot 18.

1. The judge who entered the final decree refused to add the Nagys and the Renehans as parties. The Murphys and the Donovans are, therefore, the only owners of property shown on the 1951 subdivision plan who are parties to this suit. Although the absence of the other owners of the property shown on the 1951 subdivision plan prevents the adjudication in this suit of their rights (if any) in the locus, it does not prevent the adjudication as between the Murphys and the Donovans of the latters' rights in the locus. FOLEY V. MCGONIGLE, --- MASS.APP. ---. 326 N.E.2D 723 (1975)^B.

2. The approval by the planning board of the 1951 subdivision plan showing the locus as part of Lantern Lane and the subsequent recording of that plan vested no interest in Lantern Lane in the public. Uliasz v. Gillette, 357 Mass. at 103--104, 256 N.E.2d 290. Dolan v. Board of Appeals of Chatham, 359 Mass. 699, 700--702, 270 N.E.2d 917 (1971). Therefore, if the Donovans have any rights in the locus, it must be by virtue of an easement appurtenant to their land in the subdivision rather than by virtue of some right accruing to them as...