In Mello v. Town of Dighton, 2015 Mass. Super. LEXIS 48 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2015), the Massachusetts trial court found sufficient evidence to conclude that an easement was abandoned. The proof in such cases is high; mere non-use does not constitute abandonment. More direct evidence of intent to abandon is required. In this case, the easement was owned by a railroad and the railroad's bankruptcy trustees conclusively demonstrated their intent never to make use of the easement by expressly abandoning it and stating that the easement was not needed for the railroad's operations.

Seasonal residents built homes on land leased from the town. The Massachusetts Court of Appeals held that the structures were fixtures that belong to the land owner when the leases terminated. Language to the contrary could have been inserted into the leases to classify the homes as personal property that could be removed at the end of the lease. Or the contracts could have granted the tenants an option to buy the land. Because the leases did neither of these things nor made any other arrangements, the common law presumption  prevailed that structures fixed to the land belong to the...