Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 184, § 28 (2026)

Restrictions imposed before January 1, 1962; limitations on enforceability; extension of period

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 28. No restriction imposed before January first, nineteen hundred and sixty-two shall be enforceable after the expiration of fifty years from its imposition unless a notice of restriction is recorded before the expiration of such fifty years or before January first, nineteen hundred and sixty-four, whichever is later, and in case of such recording, twenty years have not expired after the recording of any notice of restriction without the recording of a further notice of restriction.

A notice of restriction under this section shall not extend the period of enforceability unless (a) it meets the requirements specified by the last paragraph of section twenty-seven, or (b) the restriction was imposed as part of a common scheme applicable to four or more parcels contiguous except for any intervening streets or ways and the notice (1) is signed by a person then entitled of record to the benefit of the restriction and describes his benefited land, if any, (2) describes the subject parcels to be affected, and (3) specifies the way or ways, public or open to public use, upon which each such parcel abuts, or nearest to which it is located and its street number, if any, and (4) specifies the instrument imposing the restriction and its place of record in the public records. The holder of record of a recorded mortgage upon any land may sign a notice under this section in place of the owner thereof if the notice specifies the mortgage and its place of record in the public records and names one or more of the persons appearing of record to own the land at that time.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1971–2017 · leading case: Sullivan v. O'Connor, 961 N.E.2d 143 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sullivan v. O'Connor, 961 N.E.2d 143 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 2× “Additionally, the Sullivans aver the judge erred in failing to issue the requested declaration that the deed restrictions, consistent with covenants of a 1929 declaration of trust, have expired by operation of G. L. c. 184, § 28, and thus that the Sullivans’ property is not…”

Manning v. New England Mut. Life Ins., 399 Mass. 730 (Mass. 1987). · cites it 7× “We conclude that the judge correctly ruled that the restrictions could not be enforced because of the failure to re-record them as required by G. L. c. 184, § 28. New England Mutual Life Insurance Co.”

Opinion of the Justices to the Senate, 338 N.E.2d 806 (Mass. 1975). “” G. L. c. 184, § 28. Furthermore, “[n]o proceeding based upon any .”

Dunphy v. Commonwealth, 331 N.E.2d 883 (Mass. 1975). “On the basis of that assumption he then concluded that since the restriction was originally imposed in 1917 and no subsequent notice of the restriction was ever recorded, the restriction was no longer enforceable because of the fifty-year period of limitation on enforceability…”

Harrod v. Rigelhaupt, 298 N.E.2d 872 (Mass. App. Ct. 1973). “The third paragraph of the decree is to be further modified so as to provide that the defendants are enjoined from violating said restriction (so phrased) at any time prior to January 1, 2050, or the date on which said restriction might expire by reason of the provisions of G.…”

Opinion of the Justices to the Governor, 274 N.E.2d 336 (Mass. 1971). “294, § 1; G. L. c. 184, § 28, inserted by St. 1961, c.”

Connaughton v. Payne, 779 N.E.2d 683 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002). “184, § 27, or G. L. c. 184, § 28,] has occurred, or such a notice or extension has been recorded, unless it is determined that the restriction is at the time of the proceeding of actual and substantial benefit to a person claiming rights of enforcement.”

Jones v. Murphy, 799 N.E.2d 595 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003). “The plaintiffs insist that the Murphy and Rutan restrictions are governed by G. L. c. 184, § 28, inserted by St. 1961, c.”

Perry v. Aiello (Mass. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “" G. L. c. 184, § 28, inserted by St. 1961, c.”

Pave v. Mills, 10 Mass. L. Rptr. 412 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1999). · cites it 2× “” The statute did not apply to conditions or restrictions existing on July 16, 1887, but these have now been eliminated by G.L.c. 184, §28, which provides in part: No restriction imposed before January 1,.”

Blackstone Smithfield Corp. v. Town of Blackstone, 30 Mass. L. Rptr. 573 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2012). “court, such as future increases in water use beyond those covered by the Agreement, separate metering of individual condominium units resulting in retail rather than wholesale delivery of water, default in payment, allocations during water shortages, expiration of the servitude…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.