Accordingly, the judgment shall be modified to declare that the plaintiff has no right to pass and repass over Logan Court. We agree with the plaintiff that, as it requested declaratory relief, вЂњthe Land Court judge was required to make a declaration of the rights of the parties.вЂќ Dupont v. We deny the defendants' request for appellate attorneys' fees and double costs.

The grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants was proper. In sum, we conclude that the summary judgment materials present no triable issue with regard to Sky View's intent to abandon the use of Logan Court for access. Accordingly, the removal of the older fence had no bearing on Sky View's intent to retain use of Logan Court for access. As the Land Court judge noted in his order denying the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, the removal of the older fence did not make Logan Court accessible, as fence 1 continued to block the plaintiff's access to the public way adjoining Logan Court. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that by seeking permission to remove the older fence, Sky View indicated a clear intent to retain use of Logan Court. The plaintiff counters that Sky View's intent to abandon remains an open question because of a past incident where Sky View sought (and obtained) permission from one of the defendants to remove a fence running east-west (older fence) within Logan Court. Sky View acquiesced in the use of Logan Court as a parking area, which, combined with the affirmative act of erecting fence 1, is powerful evidence of abandonment. In addition, one defendant has used Logan Court as a parking area for tenants since 1997, which has also prevented the use of Logan Court for access to the plaintiff's property since that time. The record demonstrates that, in 1998, Sky View erected a fence running north-south across Logan Court (fence 1) that effectively prevented its own use-and later, the plaintiff's use-of Logan Court for access. 1404 (2002).Д«ased on the summary judgment materials, the Land Court judge concluded that Sky View's intent to abandon the use of Logan Court for access was вЂњunmistakable.вЂќ Our own review of the record leads to a similar conclusion.

вЂњSummary judgment, when appropriate, may be rendered against the moving party.вЂќ Mass.R.Civ.P. Although the defendants never filed a cross motion for summary judgment, no such motion was required. It was the plaintiff who moved for summary judgment. party, all material facts have been established and the party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.вЂ™ вЂњ Juliano v. вЂњWe review a grant of summary judgment de novo to determine вЂwhether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the.

The Land Court judge based his ruling on a determination that the plaintiff's predecessor in title, Sky View Lines, LLC (Sky View), had intentionally abandoned the use of Logan Court for access to its property, thereby foreclosing the plaintiff's current right to use the way for access. The Land Court judge granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissed the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff filed an action in the Land Court seeking a declaration of its right to pass and repass over Logan Court, as well as damages for harm resulting from the 2010 installation and subsequent removal of a fence running east-west within the right of way. The defendants own three additional lots that also abut Logan Court. The plaintiff owns three commercial lots that abut a private right of way known as Logan Court. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28 By the Court (BERRY, KATZMANN & RUBIN, JJ.).

Skipper realty