Caseflicks

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court • 1985

Parkinson v. Board of Assessors of Medfield

481 N.E.2d 491 | 395 Mass. 643 | 1985 Mass. LEXIS 1700

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that a conservation easement must clearly locate and define the restricted parcel; a general residential exception that floats across the property makes the easement unenforceable.

Background

Ellen L. Parkinson owned three parcels totaling 82.17 acres in Medfield, including a house, garage, and barn. In 1980, she granted the Trustees of Reservations a recorded conservation easement over all three parcels. The easement broadly barred construction and uses inconsistent with preserving the land in its natural condition, but expressly allowed one single-family residence with its usual outbuildings and structures.

Medfield's assessors generally valued land properly subject to a conservation restriction at no more than 25 percent of its full and fair cash value. They nevertheless assessed Parkinson's property without a reduction for fiscal years 1982 and 1983, taking the position that the easement was invalid because it purported to cover the residence and outbuildings. Parkinson paid the taxes, sought abatements, and appealed the denials to the Appellate Tax Board.

Parkinson's appraiser valued the house and an assumed seven-acre surrounding parcel at $175,000, and valued the easement-burdened remainder at $500 per acre. The Appellate Tax Board affirmed the assessors, concluding that G. L. c. 184, § 31 did not authorize a conservation easement on dwellings and appurtenant buildings. Parkinson appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Parkinson's conservation easement was valid and enforceable so that the assessors had to account for its development restrictions in valuing the property.

Holding

No. The easement was invalid because it did not identify with reasonable certainty the land subject to its restrictions and the land excepted for residential use.

Reasoning

A valid easement instrument must identify the easement and the dominant and servient estates with reasonable certainty. The description must be precise enough that a surveyor can locate the affected land; if the servient land cannot be identified, the conveyance is ineffective. The court held that this ordinary certainty requirement, rather than any categorical statutory bar on restrictions involving a dwelling, controlled the case.

The easement exempted the use of one single-family residence and its usual outbuildings, but it did not specify how much land surrounding the existing house was also exempt. Parkinson's appraiser assumed that the residence required about seven acres, yet the record supplied no basis for that figure. The necessary area could reasonably vary greatly depending on the owner's view of what was needed for residential use. As a result, the size of the restricted estate depended on an arbitrary estimate rather than on the recorded instrument.

The uncertainty also extended to location. The easement allowed one single-family residence anywhere on the property. If the existing home were destroyed, a replacement could be built at another location, creating a roving and unlocated exception to the development restrictions. Thus, the instrument failed to establish both the boundaries and the location of the land subject to the conservation restriction.

The statutory framework supported that conclusion. Although the Legislature contemplated that a grantor of a conservation easement might remain in residence, the grantor had to identify a parcel distinct from the house that would be subject to the restriction. General Laws c. 59, § 11 requires land subject to a conservation easement to be assessed as a separate parcel, and G. L. c. 184, § 33 requires sufficient identification of restricted land for the public restriction index. Because this easement did not identify a separate restricted parcel clearly enough for assessment, the assessors properly declined to discount the property's value.