Sewall-Marshal Condominium Association v. 131 Sewall Avenue Condominium Association (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-022-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   15-P-149                                        Appeals Court   Sewall-Marshal Condominium Association  vs.  131 Sewall Avenue Condominium Association. No. 15-P-149. Suffolk.     December 11, 2015. – March 1, 2016.   Present:  Cypher, Wolohojian, & Carhart, JJ. Condominiums, Parking, Common area.  Real Property, Condominium, Registered land.  Contract, Validity.       Civil action commenced in the Land Court Department on March 1, 2007.   The case was heard by Harry M. Grossman, J.     Adam P. Whitney for the defendant. Edward S. Englander for the plaintiff.     WOLOHOJIAN, J.  The parties are neighboring condominium associations in the Coolidge Corner area of Brookline, where parking is at a premium.  In 1978, when both condominiums were controlled by the same developers, they entered into a written agreement concerning the shared use and allocation of parking spots on their respective properties.  Summarized in broad strokes, they agreed that twenty percent of the spots would be reserved for residents of the plaintiff, the smaller of the two condominium associations (Sewall-Marshal), and eighty percent would be reserved for residents of the defendant, the larger one (131 Sewall), at no cost to either side.  This arrangement continued for some twenty-eight years until 131 Sewall notified Sewall-Marshal that it would no longer abide by the agreement.  This suit followed, seeking a declaration concerning the rights of the parties under the agreement.  In essence, 131 Sewall contends that the agreement is unenforceable because it fails to comply with various provisions of G. L. c. 183A, the statute that enables the creation of condominiums, and because it is otherwise an unconscionable contract.  After a bench trial, a judge of the Land Court sitting by designation in the Superior Court disagreed and entered a declaratory judgment in favor of Sewall-Marshal.  We affirm. Background.  The judge’s findings have not been shown to be clearly erroneous, and we summarize them here.  The parties are condominium associations situated on abutting parcels of registered land in Brookline, near Coolidge Corner.  Both associations were created in 1978, pursuant to the provisions of G. L. c. 183A, and their master deeds and by-laws were registered with the Norfolk registry district of the Land Court (registry district).  With certain exceptions, the organizing documents of both entities mirror each other, which is not surprising given that both properties were developed by the same owners, Roger and Matthew Stern. Roger and Matthew, along with Jeffrey Stern, constituted the original […]

Read more...