ALEXANDER C. FORBES, HELEN ROBBINS FORBES vs. ISABEL KNOWLES, ELIZABETH GRAY, EDWARD HICKS, et ux, WILLIAM TURNER, et ux, BIRCHFIELD FARM, INC., THOMAS J. QUINN

This matter comes before the Court on petitioners' Motion to Amend and Supplement Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Petitioners' motion asks for supplementation of the following three matters:

1. Whether or not parking of vehicles would be allowed within the lines of the ways established in favor of various Respondents over the land of the Petitioners in the Decision entered in the above case.

2. Determine the width and exact location of the various rights of ways in favor of the Respondents, in the Decision entered in the above case.

3. Determine the rights of the Stockholders of Birchfield Farm, Inc. in the right of way established in favor of Birchfield Farm, Inc., in the Decision entered in the above case.

The decision already entered sets forth precisely the deeds under which each of the respondents easement rights accrue. The agreement between the trustees under the will of Lawrence Grinnell and the trustees under the will of Emily Grinnell, set forth in material part on page 12 of the decision, makes specific provision for parking near the shore when using the beach. Thus, respondents claiming through the trustees' agreement, Isabel Knowles (decision, pages 13, 16), Elizabeth Gray (decision, pages 19, 21), and Thomas J. Quinn, et ux (decision, page 27) have the parking rights set forth in the trustees' agreement. As for those respondents whose grants make no specific mention of parking rights, temporary parking upon a right of way may be an incident of the grant of the easement. C.f., Opinion of the Justices, 297 Mass. 559 (1937). However, the Court declines to make further findings on parking rights because the issue was not litigated in the registration proceeding. That proceeding focused on the existence or nonexistence of certain easements, not every right which may pertain as an incident to these easements.

The Court also declines to make further findings of the rights of the stockholders of Birchfield Farm, Inc. in the rights of way. The petitioners may be anticipating a possible surcharge of the easement. Concrete facts will be needed to resolve such an issue.

As for petitioners' second request, the Court has indicated the location of the rights of way in its decision with as much precision as the evidence warrants.

Consequently, petitioners' motion is denied.