John M. Tupper, George L. Tupper, Elias Tupper and Tupper’s Joint Properties, Respondents/appellants v. Dorchester…

Summary

The court affirmed that the Tuppers possessed some enforceable easement interest, but held that genuine factual disputes remained regarding whether the easement was appurtenant and whether the public accepted a dedication of the right of way. It therefore reversed the related summary-judgment rulings and remanded, including the ruling for the Town because damages depended on whether the pool had to be removed. The court also declined to consider unpreserved arguments concerning the merits of the permit-based negligence claim.