957 N.E.2d 248
Mass. App. Ct.2011Background
- Massad defendants appeal a judgment for Grey Ledge Association trustees.
- Trial court granted summary judgment sua sponte after denying 12(b) motions.
- Judge found no material facts in dispute; field use violated master declaration; and driveway regulation was within trustees’ authority.
- Field on Massads’ property used for organized league baseball with multiple leagues; traffic created a private driveway for access.
- Master declaration restricts use of Lots to single-family residential purposes; declaration runs with the land and can impose stricter restrictions than zoning by-law.
- Trust grants trustees authority to adopt rules and regulations governing operation and use of Association Property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was properly entered sua sponte | Massad argues lack of notice/opportunity to be heard | Massads contend no error in sua sponte judgment | No reversible error; proper conversion to summary judgment established |
| Whether the base field use violates the master declaration | Use as baseball field supports single-family residential purposes | Field use falls outside single-family residential purpose | Use for organized league baseball violates the master declaration |
| Whether the common driveway regulation was within trustees’ authority | Trustees may regulate Association Property use | Regulation exceeds authority and impairs property rights | Regulation within trustees’ authority; constitutional challenge rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Santiago v. Canon USA, Inc., 138 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998) (notice of potential summary-judgment conversion limitations)
- O’Brien v. Analog Devices, Inc., 34 Mass. App. Ct. 905 (1993) (affidavits can convert motions to summary judgment)
- Vinci v. Byers, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 135 (2005) (avoidance of disputed issues created by contradictory testimony)
- Brear v. Fagan, 447 Mass. 68 (2006) (benefits of covenants running with the land)
- Kline v. Shearwater Assn., Inc., 63 Mass. App. Ct. 825 (2005) (covenants construed to avoid absurd results)
- Weston Forest and Trail Assn., Inc. v. Fishman, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 654 (2006) (construes restrictions to protect intended benefits)
- Chatham Conservation Foundation, Inc. v. Farber, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 584 (2002) (restriction construed in line with protective purpose)
- Patterson v. Paul, 448 Mass. 658 (2007) (landowners may burden land with enforceable restrictions)
- Franklin v. Spadafora, 388 Mass. 764 (1983) (private restrictions may impose reasonable limits)
- Alphas Co. v. Kilduff, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 104 (2008) (need for discovery to raise material facts)