BRUCE GOODCHILD, DONNA GOODCHILD, and GERTRUDE GOODCHILD v. LOUIS T. ARAGI and LOUIS T. ARAGI, JR.

This action commenced on August 19, 2015, as an action in which the plaintiffs seek permission of the court to relocate an easement burdening their property, originally granted in a deed recorded with Berkshire South District Registry of Deeds in Registry at Book 205, Page 254, (the "easement") to determine that the current use of the easement by the defendants extends impermissibly to property not benefitted by the easement, and seeking an award of damages for water damage caused by a nuisance. The defendants counterclaimed, seeking a determination that their use of the easement to access properties not explicitly benefitted by the easement has become valid as a result of their establishment of a prescriptive easement. The case came on for trial by the court (Speicher, J.). In a decision of even date, the court has made findings of fact and rulings of law. In accordance with the court's decision, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECLARED that on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, seeking a declaration of the plaintiffs' right to relocate the easement burdening their property, judgment is hereby entered for the plaintiffs, providing that they may relocate the easement by constructing a roadway of the dimensions, cross-section construction, and in the location shown on Exhibits 18 and 23C entered at trial, such relocated roadway to be constructed entirely at the expense of the plaintiffs, provided that the construction of the relocated roadway shall not be commenced except upon the issuance of all necessary permits and approvals, including without limitation, if required by local or state authorities, a curb cut permit and an order of conditions, and provided further that such construction shall be performed by a person or persons lawfully permitted to do so in accordance with all applicable local and state laws and regulations; and it is further

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that on Count II of the Second Amended Complaint, seeking a determination that the defendants' use of the easement over the plaintiffs' property constitutes an overburdening (or overloading) of the easement by reason of its use by the defendants to access property other than the dominant estate granted in the 1910 deed granting the easement, judgment is hereby entered for the defendants dismissing said count, and it is further

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that on Count III of the Second Amended Complaint, making a claim for damages for nuisance or damage to property, judgment is hereby entered for the defendant dismissing said count, and it is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECLARED that on Count I of the defendants' counterclaim, judgment is hereby entered that the defendants have established an easement by prescription to use the easement over the plaintiffs' property for access to the defendants' parcels of 12 acres, 67 acres and 49 acres contiguous to the land originally benefitted by the easement over the plaintiffs' property for the purpose of planting, growing and harvesting corn to be used as feed on the defendants' dairy farm, and it is further

ORDERED that today's decision, and this Judgment issued pursuant thereto, dispose of this entire case; the court has adjudicated or dismissed all claims by all parties in this action and has not reserved decision on any claim or defense, and it is further

ORDERED that no costs, fees, damages or other amounts are awarded to any party.

By the Court