MICHAEL W. MADORE, DIANE E. MADORE, FREDERICK A. ROBARGE, and AGNES M. ROBARGE v. ROBERT L. STEPHENS, JR., SUSAN K. STEPHENS, ROBERT J. VANZANDT, and ELIZABETH A. VANZANDT

This case involves the construction of two above-ground swimming pools on the properties of defendants Robert and Susan Stephens and Robert and Elizabeth Vanzandt on South Washington Street in Belchertown. Plaintiffs Michael and Diane Madore and Frederick and Agnes Robarge live on South Washington Street as well. All of the parties’ deeds, plaintiffs and defendants alike, include an explicit prohibition of above-ground swimming pools. However, none of the deeds identify the property or party that benefits from the prohibition. Nor do the deeds state who may enforce such restrictions. This case thus presents a simple dispositive issue – may the plaintiffs enforce the above-ground swimming pool restrictions against the defendants or not?

For the reasons set forth in the court’s Memorandum and Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment of this date, I find and rule that G.L. c. 184, § 27 requires that a party seeking to enforce a restriction must have been identified specifically in the deed as a benefited party or own property specifically identified as benefited, regardless of whether the properties involved were part of a common scheme. Neither the plaintiffs themselves nor their respective properties were expressly identified as the beneficiaries of the above-ground swimming pool prohibition. Therefore, the plaintiffs are unable to enforce this restriction. The Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and enter judgment for the defendants. The plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed in their entirety, with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

By the court (Long, J.)