ROBERT CASEY, FRANCIS CASEY and HELEN CASEY vs. LACOURT FAMILY, LLC

Plaintiffs Robert Casey, Francis Casey, and Helen Casey (together, “Plaintiffs” [Note 1]) commenced this case by filing an unverified complaint on October 16, 2012, which sought, pursuant to G. L. c. 231A, § 1, a declaratory judgment relative to the use of the ROW [Note 2]. Plaintiffs also sought a preliminary injunction preventing Defendant LaCourt Family, LLC (“Defendant”) from using the ROW and from towing cars using the ROW for parking.

A case management conference was held on November 13, 2012. Defendant filed an answer on November 23, 2012. By order dated January 9, 2013, the court granted Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, directing that Plaintiffs would be allowed to park in the same area of the ROW that, according to Plaintiffs, had been used for parking for at least the last fifty years.

Defendant moved for summary judgment on January 17, 2014, which was supported by a memorandum of law, a statement of material facts, and an appendix containing, among other documents, a joint affidavit of the Caseys, and excerpts of the transcripts of Plaintiffs’ depositions.

On February 18, 2014, Plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment, which was supported by a memorandum of law, a statement of material facts, and an appendix containing, among other documents, different excerpts from Plaintiffs’ depositions and photographs depicting the parties’ properties and the ROW. Defendant filed its opposition to Plaintiffs’ cross-motion, which included a supplemental appendix containing an affidavit of Rafael Carvalho (a contractor who installed a gate on the LaCourt Property in 2012). [Note 3]

A hearing on the parties’ motions for summary judgment was held on May 28, 2014. Plaintiffs filed a supplemental memorandum on the parties’ motions on June 2, 2014. At that time, the matter was taken under advisement.

The court has issued a decision (the “Decision”) as of today’s date. In accordance with the Decision, it is hereby:

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the LaCourt Property’s appurtenant right to use the ROW for access has been extinguished through abandonment; and,

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the LaCourt Property retains only its appurtenant right to the use of the ROW solely for purposes of maintaining utilities lines that do not impede access via the ROW; and,

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that, because parkingistodaypermitted on Cambridge streets, the Casey Property’s appurtenant right to use the ROW now includes the right to park thereupon, so long as such parking leaves at least ten feet of clearance for other vehicles to pass; [Note 4] and,

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that, to the extent that Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that they have obtained parking rights in any portion of the ROW by prescription or implication, this action is defective for failure to name all necessary parties; and,

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby DENIED; and,

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment is hereby ALLOWED IN PART solely to the extent specified herein and in the Decision; and,

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ request for a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs have parking rights in any portion of the ROW by prescription or implication is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice.

By the court.