## Facts

- Developers acquired approximately 70.5 acres in Waltham, Massachusetts, obtained municipal approval for up to 350 condominium units, and recorded a master deed creating an initial condominium.
- The project was structured as a phased condominium development: certain land and units were initially submitted to Massachusetts condominium law (G.L. c. 183A), with other portions intended to be added later as additional phases.
- The master deed reserved to the declarants defined rights in designated portions, including a provision that specified property could “revest” in the declarants upon the occurrence of stated conditions.
- Two adjoining condominium associations and their unit owners later disputed cost-sharing and, more fundamentally, whether the second condominium (Bishops Forest II) had been validly created and whether titles derived from the phased structure were marketable.
- Unit owners and mortgagees associated with Bishops Forest II sought declaratory relief and quiet title determinations confirming lawful creation of Bishops Forest II and clear, marketable title to units and common areas (subject to recorded encumbrances).
- The Land Court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, declaring Bishops Forest II validly created and its owners’ titles clear and marketable; defendants appealed, and the case proceeded on direct appellate review.

## Issues

1. Whether a declarant in a phased condominium may reserve in the master deed a defeasible or reversionary interest in property submitted to G.L. c. 183A so that the property revests in the declarant upon a specified condition.
2. Whether G.L. c. 183A, § 19 (removal of property from condominium status) prohibits or displaces such a reserved defeasible interest, requiring statutory “removal” procedures instead.
3. Whether the challenged reservation affects the lawful creation of the later phase and the marketability of unit owners’ titles.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiffs.
- The court held that the declarants could submit a defeasible fee to the condominium regime and reserve an interest causing designated property to revest in the declarants upon a specified condition.
- Because the estate submitted was a defeasible fee rather than a fee simple absolute, the court concluded the declarants were not required to follow G.L. c. 183A, § 19 removal procedures as though an unconditional fee had been submitted.
- The court upheld the declaration that Bishops Forest II was lawfully created and that its unit owners and mortgagees held clear, marketable title to their units and common areas, subject to recorded mortgages and liens.

## Legal Principles

- In a phased condominium, a declarant may reserve in the master deed a defeasible fee or reversionary interest in property submitted under G.L. c. 183A, permitting revesting in the declarant upon a defined condition.
- The condominium statute does not convert a properly recorded defeasible fee into a fee simple absolute or extinguish the declarant’s reserved reversionary interest.
- G.L. c. 183A, § 19 removal procedures apply to property fully and unconditionally submitted to condominium status; revesting under a reserved defeasible estate is not treated as a statutory “removal” requiring § 19 compliance.
- Where the master deed and recorded instruments validly establish the phased structure and the nature of the estates conveyed, later phases created within that structure can support clear, marketable title for unit owners.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a phased condominium master deed that reserved a defeasible fee interest permitting revesting upon a specified condition, ruled that § 19 removal procedures did not bar that arrangement, and affirmed that the later condominium phase was validly created with marketable titles for its unit owners and mortgagees.


Queler v. Skowron, 438 Mass. 304, 780 N.E.2d 71 (2002)