Court Opinion

ID: 9716506
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:42:20.659002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:46.165740
License: Public Domain

Wilkins, J.
(concurring). I agree with the court that, to the extent that the complaint alleges a violation of G. L. c. 183A, §5 (c), but only to that extent, the plaintiff’s claim is not barred by any statute of limitations. The language of G. L. c. 260, § 21, that “[a]n action for the recovery of land shall be commenced . . . only within twenty years after the right of action .- . . accrued,” makes unnecessary any attempt to discern the gist of the action. This is an action to recover land which was allegedly conveyed in violation of G. L. c. 183A, §5 (c), and, therefore, the nature or gist of the wrong is irrelevant.
I write in concurrence (1) to make clear that all claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty are time-barred; (2) to disassociate myself from suggestions in the court’s opinion concerning the merits of the plaintiff’s claim; and (3) to acknowledge that Justice O’Connor in his dissent has wisely pointed out that the challenged lease was recorded before any condominium was created and that the condominium arrangement was expressly subject to the lease, possible barriers to the plaintiff’s success on its § 5 (c) claim.