## Facts

- John C. Moakley, an artist, created and installed a large ceramic-tile mural on the exterior wall of a church property in East Bridgewater, Massachusetts, in 1971.
- The mural depicted the history of the town and, because of its size and installation method, could not be removed without being destroyed.
- In 1984, Massachusetts enacted the Art Preservation Act, G.L. c. 231, § 85S, effective April 7, 1985, creating statutory rights protecting certain works of fine art from destruction or alteration during the artist’s lifetime plus fifty years.
- In 1989, Grace Bible Church Fellowship, Inc. purchased the property and thereby acquired ownership of the mural as part of the real estate.
- The church’s pastor and members viewed aspects of the mural as religiously objectionable and sought to remove it.
- After learning that tiles were being removed, Moakley sued for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Art Preservation Act and sought damages for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- After a bench trial, the Superior Court entered judgment for defendants, concluding that applying the Act to require the church to retain the mural would violate Massachusetts constitutional religious-freedom protections.
- Moakley appealed, and the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) took direct appellate review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Massachusetts Art Preservation Act applies to works of fine art created and installed before the Act’s April 7, 1985 effective date.
2. Whether the church’s attempted removal of the mural supported claims for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress.

## Decision

- The SJC affirmed judgment for the defendants.
- The SJC held the Art Preservation Act does not apply to works created before its effective date and therefore did not give Moakley statutory grounds to prevent removal or destruction of the 1971 mural.
- Because the case was resolved on statutory grounds, the SJC did not decide whether applying the Act would violate religious-freedom protections.
- The SJC held Moakley could not recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress because the conduct was not extreme and outrageous.
- The SJC held Moakley could not recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress because the record did not show the required serious, objectively corroborated emotional injury or a cognizable duty supporting liability.

## Legal Principles

- Massachusetts statutes are presumed to operate prospectively unless the Legislature clearly and unambiguously indicates retroactive application or retroactivity is the only reasonable construction.
- Where a statute would impose new, ongoing burdens affecting existing property rights, the presumption against retroactivity is applied with particular force absent explicit legislative direction.
- Courts avoid unnecessary constitutional rulings when a case can be decided on nonconstitutional grounds.
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct that exceeds all possible bounds of decency; actions taken to control one’s property, without more, ordinarily do not meet that standard.
- Negligent infliction of emotional distress requires negligence and serious emotional harm supported by objective corroboration; the absence of a legally recognized duty and lack of verifiable injury defeats the claim.

## Conclusion

The SJC construed the Massachusetts Art Preservation Act as nonretroactive and held it did not protect a mural created before the Act’s effective date, leaving the property owner free to remove or destroy it; the court also rejected the artist’s intentional and negligent emotional distress claims for failure to satisfy Massachusetts tort standards.


Moakley v. Eastwick, 666 N.E.2d 505 (Mass. 1996)