Mass Land Court Has Jurisdiction To Consider Claim That Landowner Has Title Due To Procedural Errors In Condemnation

In Lichoulas v. City of Lowell, No. 09-P-1448 (Nov. 17, 2010), the Massachusetts Court of Appeals concluded that the state’s Land Court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider a property owner’s contesting of the state’s title to property which it purportedly took by eminent domain.

In that case, a follow-up to an earlier federal court decision which we noted here, the property owner challenged the state’s title because “the city failed to comply with the procedural rules set forth in [Massachusetts law], and that the taking therefore violated State law.” The Land Court dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction.

The court of appeals reversed, holding that the Land Court has jurisdiction over “[a]ll cases and matters cognizable under the general principles of equity jurisprudence where any right, title or interest in land is involved,” and that a challenge to a taking because of an alleged failure to comply with procedural requirements fits the bill:

One basis on which such suits have successfully been brought is for “fail[ure] to comply with the procedural requirements of G.L. c. 79.” Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Montague Economic Dev. & Industrial Corp., 38 Mass.App.Ct. 615, 618 (1995) (citation omitted). These requirements include the requirement that an order of taking may be adopted only by a municipality “having first complied with all the preliminary requirements prescribed by law.” G.L. c. 79, § 1. Chwalek v. Pittsfield, 3 Mass.App.Ct. 759, 760 (1975). The plaintiff’s claim of a violation of G.L. c. 164, §§ 35 and 37, fits comfortably within that statutory language, and as the question presented by the plaintiff is whether as a matter of law the city exceeded its lawful authority by taking his property, the plaintiff has appropriately sought injunctive relief. [FN5] The plaintiff’s claim was thus properly brought before the Land Court as a claim in equity in which a “right, title or interest in land is involved.” See G.L. c. 185, § 1(k ). The motion to dismiss the claim therefore should not have been granted.