A long‑running property dispute over North Street drew extensive questioning from the Appeals Court on whether easements were abandoned, relocated or extinguished and whether the trial court’s mapping of the right‑of‑way was supported by the record.

Thomas Moriarty, for North 12 LLC, argued the trial court erred in declaring ownership and adverse‑possession boundaries east of an existing fence; he said the record lacks evidence of continuous, exclusive acts sufficient to prove adverse possession and questioned the judge’s numeric measurements.

Michael Goldsmith, representing the Bun parties, and Danielle Long for the Walsons debated whether planting vegetation, maintaining a lawn, or diverting travel to an alternative route constituted an affirmative act inconsistent with an easement. Counsel for the Walsons pointed to aerial photographs and multiple years of parking and use near the disputed area, arguing the judge reasonably delineated the contested sections based on photographic and testimonial evidence.

The panel pressed witnesses and counsel about the precise location where an RV and boat appeared in aerial photos and asked whether the judge’s delineation between areas B and C could be reconciled with the photographic evidence and witness testimony. Several judges asked whether a remand would be required to resolve factual ambiguities if the appellate court vacated the trial court’s declarations.

The case was submitted after extensive argument; it turns on contested factual inferences from historical photos, deed language, planning‑board conditions, and the legal tests for abandonment, substitution or relocation of easement rights.