ANDREW P. RIGO v. HOWARD ISRAEL, ADELE ISRAEL, A. CAMERON FERGUSON and ANNE B. FERGUSON.

The plaintiff Andrew P. Rigo filed his complaint on May 28, 2013, naming as defendants Howard and Adele Israel, and A. Cameron and Anne Ferguson. The complaint asserts the following claims: Count I, Declaratory Relief; and Count II, Injunctive Relief. The defendants filed Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaim on July 2, 2013. That pleading actually asserts two counterclaims, one for a Declaratory Judgment declaring the rights of the parties, and the second for Trespass and Damages. The plaintiff filed his Reply to Counterclaim on July 26, 2013.

This case came on for trial by the court (Foster, J.), which, in a decision of even date, has made findings of fact and rulings of law.

In accordance with the court’s decision issued today, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECLARED with respect to Count I of the complaint that plaintiff Andrew P. Rigo holds an easement, benefiting the property shown as Lot 5 on Plan 38182A, Sheet 4, a copy of which attached hereto (the Plan), appurtenant to the properties shown as Lots 2 and 3 on the Plan, respectively, to pass over the “Way – (20.00 wide)” (Way) by foot and other non-motorized means of travel to access “Beach Area ‘C’”, all as shown on the Plan, and to use Beach Area “C” for beach purposes, subject to regulation by the Brewster Conservation Commission and other state agencies under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, the Massachusetts Endangered Species Acts, and the Brewster Wetlands Bylaw. It is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECLARED with respect to Count II of the complaint that defendants Howard and Adele Israel, and A. Cameron and Anne Ferguson are permanently enjoined from interfering with any lawful use of the Way and Beach Area “C” by plaintiff Andrew P. Rigo consistent with the plaintiff’s easement, this judgment, and any regulation by the Brewster Conservation Commission and other state agencies under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, the Massachusetts Endangered Species Acts, and the Brewster Wetlands Bylaw. It is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the defendants’ counterclaims are DISMISSED with prejudice.

By the Court.