Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 187, § 2 (2026)

Easements by prescription

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 2. No person shall acquire by adverse use or enjoyment a right or privilege of way or other easement from, in, upon or over the land of another, unless such use or enjoyment is continued uninterruptedly for twenty years.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 37 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1964–2025 · leading case: Kitras v. Town of Aquinnah, 49 N.E.3d 198 (Mass. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kitras v. Town of Aquinnah, 49 N.E.3d 198 (Mass. 2016). “601, 605-606 (1992), by prescription, see G. L. c. 187, § 2 (easement by prescription), or by implication, see Kitras I, 64 Mass.”

Rotman v. White, 908 N.E.2d 846 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 2× “On appeal, the defendants contend that the trial judge’s finding that the defendants’ use of the sewer line was not adverse to the plaintiff was clearly erroneous.”

Boothroyd v. Bogartz, 859 N.E.2d 876 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007). “There was evidence that Jared used this new trail to ride his motorized dirt bikes for at least a one-year period.”

Boston Seaman's Friend Soc'y, Inc. v. Rifkin Mgmt., Inc., 473 N.E.2d 702 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985). · cites it 2× “Although Rifkin, and its predecessor in title, Majestic Entertainment and Realty Company (Majestic), had used the land with the permission of the lessee of Seaman’s predecessor in title, it claimed a prescriptive easement in it under G. L. c. 187, § 2. On Seaman’s appeal from…”

Houghton v. Johnson, 887 N.E.2d 1073 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). “40, 43-44 (2007), we stated that G. L. c. 187, § 2, requires that persons show by clear proof that they or their predecessors have used property in which they claim a prescriptive easement “in a manner that has been (a) open, (b) notorious, (c) adverse to the owner, and (d)…”

Smaland Beach Ass'n, Inc. v. Genova, 112 N.E.3d 814 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018). “as asserted that SBA failed to establish a prescriptive easement over the footpath and the boat ramp because, according to the Genovas, SBA's use of those areas was permissive.”

Ryan v. Stavros, 203 N.E.2d 85 (Mass. 1964). “783 ; G. L. c. 187, § 2. 5. The final issue for our consideration is whether the plaintiffs acquired an easement by prescription on a triangular piece of the disputed strip for access to Park Avenue.”

Glenn v. Poole, 423 N.E.2d 1030 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981). “G. L. c. 187, § 2. And the extent of the easement so obtained is fixed by the use through which it was created.”

Tetrault v. Bruscoe, 497 N.E.2d 275 (Mass. 1986). “See G. L. c. 187, § 2 (1984 ed.); G. L. c. 185, § 53 (1984 ed.”

Denardo v. Stanton, 906 N.E.2d 1024 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009). “” This finding is not clearly erroneous and has ample support in the record, as both sets of defendants showed that use of Beach Way benefited them in the use and enjoyment of their property, one-half mile away. B. Prescriptive easement.”

Witteveld v. City of Haverhill, 421 N.E.2d 783 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981). “G. L. c. 187, § 2. See Uliasz v. Gillette, 357 Mass.”

Lemieux v. Rex Leather Finishing Corp., 388 N.E.2d 1195 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979). “See G. L. c. 187, § 2; Restatement of Property § 506, Comment e (1944).”

Show all 37 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.