On May 23, 2023, Davis Malm shareholders Paul Feldman and Shawn McCormack achieved a significant victory for their client, Smiley First, LLC (Smiley), in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC). In Smiley First, LLC v. Department of Transportation, the state’s highest court analyzed whether the government could repurpose a railroad easement leftover from the Big Dig for use as a new testing facility for MBTA subway cars. The SJC ruled in favor of Smiley, holding that the new use exceeded the scope of the old easement, and that the government is required to compensate Smiley for taking private property for public use.

Back in 1991, the Department of Public Works (“DPW”) exercised the power of eminent domain to take an easement over a large tract of land in South Boston for purposes of constructing the South Boston Haul Road in connection with the Big Dig. The Haul Road would displace some railroad track in the area, and easements were also taken to relocate railroad tracks. Smiley’s property was subject to one of those easements.

In 2017, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) began planning the construction of a test track for Red Line cars and a 6,000-square-foot building for newly purchased subway cars on a portion of Smiley’s land subject to the 1991 taking. MassDOT—on behalf of the MBTA—claimed it had the right to do so under the 1991 taking, and refused to pay Smiley any compensation. Smiley disagreed, and represented by Paul and Shawn, responded with litigation in Superior Court where Judge Paul D. Wilson entered summary judgment in favor of MassDOT. Smiley appealed and the SJC transferred the case from the Appeals Court on its own motion where they reversed it the Superior Court’s judgment, ruling that the new use proposed by MassDOT and the MBTA exceeded the scope of the government’s rights under the 1991 taking, that summary judgment for MassDOT must be reversed, and that Smiley was entitled to just compensation for the new taking.

In so ruling, the SJC clarified several important aspects of easement law in general, and eminent domain law in particular. In an article published by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, Paul said, “The decision makes clear that rules of interpretation for negotiated easements between private parties apply equally to easements taken by eminent domain, other than looking at the intent of the parties, which is not a relevant consideration when property is taken against a landowner’s will.”

To read the complete SJC decision, please click here.

Return to Resources