Don Pinto Quoted in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly: SJC: Abutters Lack Standing in Chapter 61A Sale of Cranberry Bog

Excerpted from the May 30, 2026 online edition of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that abutting property owners and a preservation nonprofit lacked standing to challenge the sale of a Centerville cranberry bog, despite the seller's failure to fully comply with Chapter 61A notice requirements. The court held that the statute's notice provisions are intended to protect municipal interests—not the interests of neighboring landowners.

Commenting on the decision, Pierce Atwood land use and litigation attorney Donald R. Pinto, Jr. noted that the ruling was consistent with prior case law, including the Appeals Court's 2023 decision in Reilly v. Hopedale involving Chapter 61 forest land. He explained that Massachusetts' land preservation statutes—Chapters 61, 61A, and 61B—operate similarly by allowing landowners to receive favorable tax treatment in exchange for providing notice to municipalities when land is sold or converted to another use.

"The catch is that when you go to sell or convert it to a different use, you have to provide notice to the town," Don said. He emphasized that the purpose of the statute is to give municipalities an opportunity to exercise their right of first refusal, adding, "There's no mention of abutters in the statute."

Don further observed that if the Legislature had intended to require notice to abutters or grant them enforcement rights, it knew how to do so. The SJC's decision reinforces that Chapter 61A's notice requirements are designed to protect municipal preservation interests rather than provide neighboring property owners with a basis to challenge land transactions.

Click here for the complete article by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly news reporter Kris Olson.