In 2024, the Appeals Court held that a competing buyer who recorded a lis pendens against a manufactured housing community could not complain that the residents’ association missed its statutory deadlines, and it vacated and remanded. After the trial court entered a new judgment, the Supreme Judicial Court took the case on direct appellate review. In 2026 it reversed the declaration that the association had validly exercised its right of first refusal, holding that the association missed the 90 day financing deadline and that the lis pendens did not excuse the delay on this record. It affirmed judgment for the competing buyer on the association’s unfair practices and interference claims. The 2024 decision is a published Appeals Court decision, but on the deadline question the 2026 SJC decision now controls.
What happened
The owner of an 81 home manufactured housing community in Bourne signed an agreement in November 2019 to sell the land to a company that operates such communities, for cash, and then sent residents notice of the deal. Residents formed an association, gathered signatures on a petition, and in January 2020 sent the owner the petition and their own purchase agreement, which included a mortgage contingency. The owner signed the association’s agreement. The competing buyer then sued and recorded a lis pendens, a public notice of a lawsuit affecting title. After a bench trial, a Superior Court judge ruled for the competing buyer.
What the court decided
In Crown Communities, LLC v. Austin, 105 Mass. App. Ct. 113 (2024), the Appeals Court affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded. Under G.L. c. 140, § 32R(c), an association can buy the community if it gives the owner reasonable evidence that residents of at least 51 percent of the occupied homes approve, submits a purchase agreement on substantially equivalent terms within 45 days, gets a binding financing commitment within 90 more days, and closes within 90 days after that.
Representation and the petition. The trial judge looked at how many residents signed membership agreements. The Appeals Court held that the statute asks whom the association represents, not who joined it. The judge also miscounted the petition, finding 49 signatures when there were 61, and wrongly required the petition to be verified. The Attorney General’s regulation says reasonable evidence includes a document signed by the residents. 940 CMR 10.09(3)(a).
Mortgage contingency. The court held that a financing contingency does not, by itself, take an association’s offer outside “substantially equivalent terms” when the outside offer is for cash.
Deadlines and the lis pendens. The competing buyer recorded its lis pendens, a notice of the kind allowed by G.L. c. 184, § 15, before the deadlines arrived. The court held that a party who takes a step meant to hamper the sale and the financing will not be heard to complain that the statutory deadlines were missed.
Counterclaims. The court vacated judgment on the association’s interference claim, which depended on whether it had validly exercised its right to buy, and on its unfair practices claim under G.L. c. 93A, § 11, because the trial judge had not addressed letters warning residents they would lose rent control, which they did not have, and offering gift cards and other incentives. It affirmed judgment for the buyer on the civil rights claim under G.L. c. 12, § 11I, finding no threats, intimidation or coercion.
What the SJC did next
On remand, the trial judge ruled that the association had validly exercised its right. The SJC took the case on direct appellate review and decided Crown Communities, LLC v. Austin, No. SJC-13841 (Mass. June 5, 2026). It agreed that a signed petition is reasonable evidence of support. But it held that the association did not get financing until July 2020, more than six months after signing, never sought an extension, and offered no evidence that the lis pendens actually slowed its financing or that it sought financing in time. The SJC reversed the declaration that the association validly exercised the right and affirmed judgment for the buyer on the c. 93A and interference claims. It did not decide the mortgage contingency question.
What this means for you
If your community’s owner agrees to sell, you and your neighbors may have a right to buy the land. A signed petition can prove your support. But do not rely on the 2024 Appeals Court ruling to excuse a missed deadline because a rival buyer sued. Under the 2026 SJC decision, the 90 day financing deadline is strict unless the owner agrees to extend it, and a lis pendens does not relieve you of showing at least good faith efforts to get financing on time.
What to do now
- Write down the date you received notice of the offer and count the 45 day deadline right away.
- Collect signatures from residents who own and live in their homes.
- Apply for financing as soon as possible and keep records of every application and lender response.
- If you may miss a deadline, ask the owner for a written extension before it passes.
If this is your situation, call Doubleday Law at (617) 575-2006 or tell us what happened. Housing Court deadlines are short.
