TOWN OF SUDBURY v. DOROTHY M. BARTLETT, LAURA B. McCARTHY, and MARTHA J. BARTLETT, as they are trustees of JOC TRUST, and SUDBURY STATION, LLC.

This action commenced December 8, 2016, with the filing of a complaint by the town of Sudbury, asserting claims for declaratory relief to recognize and enforce a restrictive covenant or an equitable servitude over certain land in Sudbury of the defendant Trustees of JOC Trust, and in the alternative seeking to void a deed by which the town of Sudbury conveyed a parcel known as Parcel 3B to the defendant Trustees.

This case came on for hearing on defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on both counts of the complaint, and plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I of the complaint. In a decision issued this day, the court (Speicher, J.) has determined that judgment shall enter in favor of the defendants on both counts of the complaint.

In accordance with the court's decision, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECLARED, on Count I of the complaint, that neither the deed executed by the Sudbury Board of Selectmen on November 7, 2012, and recorded with the Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds on December 10, 2012 in Book 60688, Page 158, nor the subdivision plan approved by the Sudbury Planning Board by decision dated September 19, 2012, nor any other documents or attendant circumstances gave rise to any restrictive covenant or equitable servitude encumbering the land, known as Parcel 3B, conveyed by said deed, or the land of the defendants for which Parcel 3B was intended to provide roadway access, and accordingly, said land is not subject to any restrictive covenant or equitable servitude.

It is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECLARED, on Count II of the complaint, that the deed executed by the Sudbury Board of Selectmen on November 7, 2012, and recorded with the Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds on December 10, 2012 in Book 60688, Page 158, did not exceed the authority of the Board of Selectmen as authorized by the Town Meeting vote approving Article 27 of the Warrant for the May, 2011 Sudbury Town Meeting; the conveyance by said deed, made without the inclusion of a restrictive covenant concerning the number of dwelling units that could be constructed on Parcel 3B or the property for which it was intended to provide roadway access, was a valid exercise of the Board of Selectmen's authority.

It is further

ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that the Counterclaim of the defendants, sounding in tort for trespass to trees and trespass, is not within the jurisdiction of the Land Court, and is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The court having otherwise disposed of the complaint in this action, the court furthermore declines to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over the Counterclaim. See Ritter v. Bergmann, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 296 , 301-302 (2008).

It is further

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that this Judgment is a full adjudication of all the parties' claims in this case, and all prayers for relief by any party in this action which are not granted in the preceding paragraphs are DENIED. It is further

ORDERED that no costs, fees, damages, or other amounts are awarded to any party.

By the Court.