Blakeley v. Gorin

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · 1974 · Property

313 N.E.2d 903 (1974)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyRestrictive covenantsEquitable servitudesLand use controlsspecific enforcementmoney damagesobsolete restrictionsactual and substantial benefit

Facts

Petitioners owned a vacant lot at 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 Commonwealth Avenue and the adjacent Ritz-Carlton parcel across Public Alley No. 437. They proposed to build a 285-foot hotel-apartment tower on the vacant lot and connect it to the Ritz-Carlton by a twelve-story bridge beginning thirteen feet above the alley. Respondents owned the adjacent 12-14 Commonwealth Avenue building, whose rear apartments obtained their principal light and air from windows facing the alley. The parcels were subject to old Commonwealth Restrictions including setback, no mercantile use, no stable, cellar-depth, and a requirement that the rear passageway be kept open.

Issue

Whether G.L. c. 184, § 30 was constitutionally applied to deny specific enforcement of the Commonwealth Restrictions, and whether the particular restrictions on petitioners' land were obsolete or otherwise unenforceable. More specifically, whether the passageway restriction, though still beneficial to respondents, could be enforced only by money damages rather than injunction.

Rule

A restriction cannot be enforced under G.L. c. 184, § 30 unless it is of actual and substantial benefit to the person claiming enforcement. Even if it is of such benefit, specific enforcement may be denied and relief limited to money damages when statutory conditions exist, including materially changed neighborhood conditions or public land-use controls, impediment to reasonable and most suitable use of land inconsistent with the public interest, or other reasons making injunction inequitable or contrary to the public interest. A passageway restriction intended to preserve light and air is not obsolete so long as benefited residences continue to exist and retain that benefit.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Providence, Dana Lowell owns a loft building whose rear units face a narrow service lane. A 1910 deed for the parcel across the lane requires that the lane be kept open, and Dana seeks to stop Harbor Crest Development from building an enclosed skybridge over the lane. The evidence shows Dana's building has no windows or vents facing the lane, and its value and use would be unchanged if the bridge were built.

Under the governing rule, what is the strongest argument against enforcing the restriction at Dana's request?

Explanation. A restriction may not be enforced unless it is, at the time of the proceeding, of actual and substantial benefit to the person claiming enforcement. If Dana's property receives no meaningful light, air, access, or other benefit from the open lane, Dana fails at the threshold. The majority rejected automatic obsolescence and did not hold that only public bodies may enforce such rights.