Sullivan v. O'Connor
961 N.E.2d 143
Mass. App. Ct.2012Background
- Westwood Hills Improvement Association is an unincorporated trust-created entity (1929) holding common-area property for a private community.
- Sullivans bought 14 Surrey Lane in 1977; their deed references the 1929 declaration and 1947 predecessor deeds, tying their property to the association's restrictions.
- Deeds mention restrictions for the benefit of all owners and that restrictions are enforceable by the Trustees or other lot owners, remaining in force for 150 years from 1930 unless released.
- Sullivans’ deed does not explicitly require membership or payment of assessments, though the chain of title and referenced documents reveal awareness of associated duties.
- From 1977 to 1983, Sullivans paid semiannual assessments; after June 1983 they stopped, prompting letters from trustees and, in 1991, a recorded declaration of restrictive covenants signed by all owners except the Sullivans.
- In 2007 trustees sued in District Court for unpaid assessments; Sullivans filed a Land Court action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether assessments run as an equitable servitude binding Sullivans | Sullivans argue no explicit deed obligation to pay assessments. | Trustees contend there is an implied or title-based obligation to pay. | Affirmed in part; assessments enforceable as an equitable servitude against the land. |
| Whether expiration under G. L. c. 184, § 28 nullifies assessments | Deed restrictions expired; assessments should too. | Assessments are equitable servitudes not tied to expired restrictions. | Assessments not extinguished by § 28; remains enforceable as a servitude. |
| Whether enforcement is through a personal obligation or as a charge on the property | Sullivans contend personal liability for assessments. | Enforcement should be in equity against land, not personally. | Modified judgment: enforce as a charge on property, not personal obligation; deed restrictions expire. |
| Whether common-scheme and implied-in-fact contract theories support enforcement | Deed chain lacks explicit assessment obligation. | There is a common scheme and implied contract to pay assessments. | Supported by common-scheme and implied-in-fact contract theories. |
Key Cases Cited
- Popponesset Beach Assn. v. Marchillo, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 586 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996) (exception to title-free land for encumbrances in chain of title)
- Guillette v. Daly Dry Wall, Inc., 367 Mass. 355 (Mass. 1975) (uniform obligations in subdivision deeds; reference to subdivision plan)
- Everett Factories & Terminal Corp. v. Oldetyme Distil. Corp., 300 Mass. 499 (Mass. 1938) (equitable servitudes for annual payments enforceable against land, not personally)
- Snow v. Van Dam, 291 Mass. 477 (Mass. 1935) (building schemes imply restrictions run with land)
- Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes), Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 6.2 (2000) (implied obligations within common-interest communities)
- Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes), Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 1.8 (2000) (definition of common-interest community and its obligations)
- Evergreen Highlands Assn. v. West, 73 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2003) (recognizes power to levy assessments in common-interest communities)
- Sea Gate Assn. v. Fleischer, 211 N.Y.S.2d 767 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1960) (owners who enjoy easements must pay maintenance)