Earlier this year, we reported that the Essex Superior Court dismissed a petition by the Town of Nahant to take more than 12 acres of land from Northeastern University by eminent domain. The court found the town’s order to take the land null and void because it had pursued the taking “in bad faith for an improper reason.”
Last month, the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed. The issues for the court to decide on appeal were two-fold: First, whether Northeastern had permanently dedicated the land for use as an “ecological preserve and for passive recreation,” which would foreclose the University from expanding its Marine Science Center project without first obtaining legislative approval pursuant to Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution; and second, whether promissory estoppel precluded Northeastern from building on the land due to an alleged “unambiguous promise” to preserve the land.
In addressing the first issue, the Court held that the Town had no reasonable expectation of establishing that Northeastern had dedicated the land to the public. The court cited conflicting and unpersuasive evidence from the Town regarding Northeastern’s plans for the land, which ultimately pointed towards private use.
On the issue of Northeastern having made an “unambiguous promise” to preserve its land as an ecological preserve, the court, citing Rhode Island Hosp. Trust Nat’l Bank v. Varadian, once again found in favor of Northeastern, holding that the town had no reasonable expectation of proving the “unambiguous promise.” A 1965 letter cited by the Town from Northeastern’s president was insufficient to invoke promissory estoppel, the court held, because it reflected only a future intention.
For questions on this decision, please reach out to Ann Sobolewski or any member of Prince Lobel’s Real Estate Practice Group.
With thanks to Andrew Anderton for his work on this blog post.