## Facts

- Bernard Rosenshein bought a commercial parcel in Peabody, Massachusetts and unsuccessfully attempted to buy an adjacent parcel to assemble the properties for development.
- Rosenshein sold his parcel to North Shore Auto Brokers, Inc., but recorded a deed restriction barring North Shore and successors from developing the parcel in conjunction with the adjacent parcel.
- Rosenshein owned no land that could be benefitted by the restriction and retained only a claimed enforcement right.
- The parcel was later resold subject to the restriction; after a mortgage default, the FDIC took title through foreclosure.
- The FDIC had difficulty selling the property because it could not convey title free of the restriction.
- William Garland and Peter Pantazelos agreed to purchase the property from the FDIC “subject to all restrictions and encumbrances,” then sought a declaration that the restriction was invalid and unenforceable.

## Issues

1. Whether the restriction was enforceable under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 184, § 30 when the person claiming enforcement owned no benefitted land and the asserted advantage was purely personal or financial.
2. Whether the restriction was alternatively void as an unreasonable restraint on alienation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed a Land Court judgment declaring the restriction invalid.
- The court held the restriction was unenforceable under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 184, § 30 because it did not provide Rosenshein an “actual and substantial benefit” at the time of suit.
- Having resolved the case under § 30, the court did not rely on the alternative ground that the restriction was an unreasonable restraint on alienation.

## Legal Principles

- Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 184, § 30, a restriction may be enforced only if it is, at the time of the proceeding, of “actual and substantial benefit” to the person claiming enforcement rights.
- A restriction is not enforceable where the claimant owns no land benefitted by the restriction and the only claimed advantage is personal financial leverage (such as the possibility of being paid to release the restriction).
- Enforcement rights over land-use restrictions are disfavored when detached from any benefitted estate and unsupported by a current, land-related benefit.

## Conclusion

Because Rosenshein owned no benefitted land and the restriction conferred no present, substantial property-based benefit to him, the court held the restriction unenforceable under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 184, § 30 and affirmed judgment for the purchasers.


Garland v. Rosenshein, 420 Mass. 319, 649 N.E.2d 756 (Mass. 1995)