## Facts

- Trustees owned the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Boston’s Back Bay and an adjacent vacant lot separated by a private passageway (alley).
- Nearby owners held an apartment building abutting the passageway; many rear apartments relied on windows facing the passageway for light and air.
- The area was originally developed under a common scheme of deed restrictions, including a covenant requiring the passageway to “be kept open.”
- The trustees proposed constructing a hotel-apartment building on the vacant lot and connecting it to the existing hotel with a twelve-story bridge spanning the passageway, beginning about 13 feet above the ground.
- The nearby owners claimed the bridge and related construction would materially reduce light and air and violate the “kept open” covenant.
- The trustees sought a declaration that the restrictions were obsolete and unenforceable; the trial court agreed, denied injunctive relief, and awarded only nominal damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the “kept open” covenant was “obsolete and unenforceable” under G.L. c. 184, § 30, or instead provided an “actual and substantial benefit” to neighboring owners.
2. If the covenant remained beneficial and enforceable, whether equity nevertheless warranted denying specific enforcement (injunction) and awarding damages instead.
3. Whether allowing the project to proceed without specific enforcement effected an unconstitutional taking of the neighbors’ property rights without just compensation.

## Decision

- The court held the covenant was not obsolete because it continued to confer an actual and substantial benefit to the neighbors through preservation of light and air.
- The court nonetheless denied injunctive relief, concluding that enforcing the covenant by injunction would be oppressive, inequitable, and not in the public interest given changed conditions and the relative hardships.
- The court ruled the neighbors were entitled to more than nominal damages reflecting the actual loss caused by the project.
- The court rejected the constitutional challenge, concluding that even if a taking were assumed, it would be for a public purpose and the availability of damages addressed compensable harm.
- The case was remanded for a proper assessment of damages.

## Legal Principles

- A land-use restriction will not be enforced or declared enforceable unless it provides, at the time of suit, an actual and substantial benefit to a person entitled to enforce it.
- A covenant may remain valid and beneficial yet be denied specific enforcement when equitable considerations and changed conditions make an injunction oppressive or inequitable.
- When specific enforcement of a restrictive covenant is denied, monetary damages may be awarded to compensate the beneficiary for measurable injury.
- Denial of injunctive enforcement in favor of damages does not necessarily constitute an unconstitutional taking where the governmental or judicial action serves a public purpose and compensation is available.

## Conclusion

The court recognized that the passageway-open covenant continued to benefit abutting owners by protecting light and air, so it could not be declared obsolete, but it refused to enjoin the development because equitable and public-interest considerations favored allowing construction subject to compensatory damages.


Blakeley v. Gorin, 365 Mass. 590, 313 N.E.2d 903 (Mass. 1974)