The plaintiffs are homeowners in Stoneham. Their lots abut a paved roadway known as that they and their predecessors have used for at least thirty years. At issue in this case is the status of that road. Nearly all of it is on Commonwealth parkland, administered by the Department of Conservation and Recreation. The remainder, at the far end where the roadway meets Pond Street, cuts through a lot owned by defendant Eugene Argiro. The plaintiffs claim (1) adverse possession of the portion of the roadway that crosses Mr. Argiros lot; (2) an easement by prescription over the entirety of the roadway (both on the Commonwealths parkland and Mr. Argiros property); (3) an easement by necessity over the entirety of the roadway; (4) an easement by estoppel over the entirety of the roadway; (5) an easement by deed over the entirety of the roadway, benefiting plaintiff Michael Tarmeys property; (6) ownership in the abutting landowners (plaintiffs Flynn, Wang, Tarmey, Wong and Zatta) to the centerline of the roadway pursuant to G.L. c. 183, § 58 (the derelict fee statute); (7) an easement by implication over the entirety of the roadway; and (8) a public way by prescription over the entirety of the roadway. Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief (May 18, 2007). The defendants dispute each of these claims. All parties have moved for summary judgment.
For the reasons set forth in the courts Memorandum and Order on the Parties Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment of this date, I find and rule that none of the plaintiffs have a right, title or interest in or to any part of the roadway, and their use of it is subject to the permission of the owner of the portions they seek to use. The roadway has not become a public way by prescription. Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is DENIED and the defendants motions for summary judgment are ALLOWED.
By the court (Long, J.)