Camara v. Capeto

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Camara v. Capeto

446 N.E.2d 91, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 955, 1983 Mass. App. LEXIS 1241

DecidedMarch 3, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 446 N.E.2d 91 (Camara v. Capeto) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Camara v. Capeto, 446 N.E.2d 91, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 955, 1983 Mass. App. LEXIS 1241 (Mass. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

The common judgment entered in both actions is reversed for the reasons that there was no evidence at trial (1) that an easement to use or maintain the sewer line was expressly reserved or granted when the properties in question were severed from common ownership in 1952; (2) that at that time the use or maintenance of the line was strictly (or even reasonably) necessary to the continued enjoyment of what is now the Capeto property; or (3) as to the intentions of the parties to the severance concerning the continued use or maintenance of the line through what is now the Camara property. See Dale v. Bedal, 305 Mass. 102, 103-104 (1940); Krinsky v. Hoffman, 326 Mass. 683, 687-689 (1951); Swartz v. Sinnott, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 838 (1978). A new judgment is to be entered dismissing the action numbered 11785; a new judgment is to be entered in the action numbered 11747 which declares that the Capetos [956]*956have failed to prove any right to use or maintain the sewer line through the Camara property; costs of appeal are not to be awarded to any party in either action.

Lloyd Earl Belford for Moises Camara & another. Frederic J. Torphy for Manuel Capeto & another.

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The common judgment entered in both actions is reversed for the reasons that there was no evidence at trial (1) that an easement to use or maintain the sewer line was expressly reserved or granted when the properties in question were severed from common ownership in 1952; (2) that at that time the use or maintenance of the line was strictly (or even reasonably) necessary to the continued enjoyment of what is now the Capeto property; or (3) as to the intentions of the parties to the severance concerning the continued use or maintenance of the line through what is now the Camara property. See Dale v. Bedal, 305 Mass. 102, 103-104 (1940); Krinsky v. Hoffman, 326 Mass. 683, 687-689 (1951); Swartz v. Sinnott, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 838 (1978). A new judgment is to be entered dismissing the action numbered 11785; a new judgment is to be entered in the action numbered 11747 which declares that the Capetos [956]*956have failed to prove any right to use or maintain the sewer line through the Camara property; costs of appeal are not to be awarded to any party in either action.

Lloyd Earl Belford for Moises Camara & another. Frederic J. Torphy for Manuel Capeto & another.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

446 N.E.2d 91, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 955, 1983 Mass. App. LEXIS 1241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camara-v-capeto-massappct-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack