Flax v. Smith
20 Mass. App. Ct. 149, 1985 Mass. App. LEXIS 1782, 479 N.E.2d 183 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An easement by implication can be created through an involuntary conveyance, such as a property seizure for nonpayment of taxes, when there is a high degree of necessity and the other traditional elements for an implied easement are present. The creation of such an easement is based on a presumed objective intent derived from public policy considerations, not the actual subjective intent of the involuntary grantor.
Facts:
- Prior to 1966, Steven Flax's parcel (Lot A) and Herbert Smith's parcels (Lots B and C) were under common ownership.
- Since 1950, two residences on Lot A have been continuously serviced by water and sewer lines that run under Lot C to the main lines on St. John Street.
- In 1966, the city of Boston took Lot A for nonpayment of taxes, severing it from common ownership.
- Due to a rock ledge, installing new, independent water and sewer lines for Lot A would be prohibitively expensive, costing an estimated $4,800 exclusive of pipes and connection.
- Smith's predecessor trustees acquired title to Lots B and C in 1977 and sought to prevent the continued use of the water and sewer lines.
- Steven Flax acquired title to Lot A from the city of Boston at a public auction in 1978.
Procedural Posture:
- Steven Flax sued Herbert Smith, trustee, in a Massachusetts Superior Court (trial court).
- Flax sought a declaration that his property had an easement for water and sewer lines across Smith's property and an injunction to prevent interference.
- Smith filed a counterclaim seeking an order for Flax to cease using the lines and to pay for past use.
- After a trial without a jury, the Superior Court judge ruled in favor of Flax, finding that an easement by implication had been created.
- Smith, as the appellant, appealed the judgment of the Superior Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an involuntary conveyance of property, such as a tax taking, preclude the creation of an easement by implication where the elements of reasonable necessity and prior continuous use are otherwise met?
Opinions:
Majority - Fine, J.
No. An involuntary conveyance of property does not preclude the creation of an easement by implication. The court found that all traditional elements of an implied easement were met: prior common ownership, a continuous and apparent prior use benefiting one parcel, and reasonable necessity for the continuation of that use. While the involuntary nature of the tax taking means the grantor lacked actual subjective intent to create an easement, the requisite intent is a presumed objective intent based on the circumstances and public policy. Public policy supports this finding, as it encourages bidding at tax auctions, thereby aiding municipal revenue collection. The court also noted that while a higher degree of necessity may be required for involuntary conveyances, the substantial cost of installing new lines satisfied even this heightened standard.
Analysis:
This decision extends the doctrine of implied easements, which traditionally arises from voluntary grants, to the context of involuntary conveyances like tax sales. The court clarifies that the 'intent' element of the doctrine is a legal fiction rooted in public policy rather than the grantor's actual state of mind. By prioritizing the public policy of efficient tax collection, the ruling ensures that purchasers at tax sales receive property with the necessary appurtenances to make it usable, thus protecting its value and encouraging robust bidding. This precedent establishes that involuntary grantors can be held to have 'intended' to create an easement, especially where a high degree of necessity exists.
