Liacos, J.
This case concerns the validity of a lease of a portion of the common areas owned by the Beaconsfield Towne House Condominium at 120 Beaconsfield Road, Brook-[481]*481line. The lease in issue purports to create a leasehold interest in twelve parking spaces for persons not members of the condominium trust. The trial judge treated the claim as one sounding in contract, and granted summary judgment for the defendant on the ground that G. L. c. 260, § 2 (1986 ed.), which imposes a six-year period of limitations on contract claims, barred the action. The plaintiff appealed, and we transferred the case to this court on our own motion. We agree with the plaintiff that the governing statute of limitations is G. L. c. 260, § 21 (1986 ed.), providing that actions to recover land must be commenced within twenty years after the cause of action accrues. Thus, we reverse the judgment.3
The plaintiff, Beaconsfield Towne House Condominium Trust, was created under G. L. c. 183 A, as amended, to manage the building and common facilities at 120 Beaconsfield Road, Brookline. Previously the defendant David Zussman had owned the property. On Decembers, 1970, David Zussman, conveyed the premises, including the parking spaces at issue, to his wife, the defendant Selma Zussman, in her capacity as trustee of the defendant 120 Beaconsfield Realty Trust. On June 10, 1977, Selma Zussman executed a written lease of the parking spaces to David Zussman as trustee of the defendant Davran-St. Paul Trust. On the same day, Selma Zussman conveyed the premises by master deed to the plaintiff, the newly-created Beaconsfield Towne House Condominium Trust, of which David Zussman was a trustee. On June 16, 1977, the lease and then the master deed were recorded contemporaneously at the Norfolk registry of deeds.4
The master deed states that it is subject to the lease, which runs for 155 years.5 Subsequent to the recording of the con[482]*482dominium trust master deed, Selma Zussman executed two purported amendments to the lease on June 29, 1977, and July 29, 1977, respectively. The first purported amendment deleted descriptions of certain parking areas, leaving intact only a list of numbered parking spaces. The second purported amendment, as relevant here, added a right of ingress and egress to allow access to the enumerated parking spaces.
The essence of the plaintiff’s claim is a violation of G. L. c. 183A, § 5 (c) (1986 ed.), in that the defendant’s lease of the parking spaces in question violated the statute’s explicit provisions prohibiting division of the common areas of the condominium.6 Although there are also allegations of breach of fiduciary obligations, the major aspect of the action concerns an interest in land.
This court has recognized that ownership of a condominium unit constitutes an interest in land. See Franklin v. Spadafora, 388 Mass. 764, 767 (1983) (trustees of a condominium have interest in land in condominium complex). The concept of condominiums as realty arguably existed even at common law,7 but began to flourish in contemporary times with the advent of enabling legislation. See Barclay v. DeVeau, 384 Mass. 676, 682 (1981), and articles cited. General Laws c. 183A (1986 ed.), originally enacted in 1963, St. 1963, c. 493, § 1, [483]*483was designed to “clarify the legal status of the condominium in light of its peculiar characteristics.” Grace v. Brookline, 379 Mass. 43, 52 (1979). We have recognized that the statute specifies certain minimum requirements for establishing condominiums. Tosney v. Chelmsford Village Condominium Ass’n, 397 Mass. 683, 686 (1986).
As part of these requirements, the statute contains a comprehensive scheme defining and governing the common areas of a condominium complex.8 Each unit owner is entitled to a proportional, undivided interest in such areas, G. L. c. 183A, § 5 (a), and this percentage interest cannot be altered absent the consent of all unit owners, c. 183A, § 5 (b).9 Furthermore, c. 183A, § 5 (c), mandates explicitly that the common areas must remain undivided, and that any covenant or provision to the contrary is null and void.10
“The statutory language, when clear and unambiguous, must be given its ordinary meaning. . . . When the use of the [484]*484ordinary meaning of a term yields a workable result, there is no need to resort to extrinsic aids such as legislative history. . . . Moreover, the statutory language is the principal source of insight into legislative purpose.” (Citations omitted.) Bronstein v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 390 Mass. 701, 704 (1984).11 The crux of the plaintiff’s claim under § 5 (c) is that the provision in the master deed referring to the lease of the parking spaces violates the clear statutory language prohibiting division of the common areas and is therefore null and void. The language of § 5 (c) is unambiguous. A claim under the section, whatever the merits of that claim may prove to be, constitutes an action concerning an interest in land.12
As noted above, under § 5 (b) the unanimous consent of all unit owners to an amendment of the master deed is required to change the percentage of the undivided interest of each owner in the common areas. The record contains no indication, nor do the defendants assert, that such consent was given. Therefore, it is immaterial whether the reference in the master deed to the lease constituted notice to present or subsequent unit owners.13
[485]*485The defendants argue, however, that the plantiff’s complaint is based on alleged fraudulent dealings, which is a claim essentially contractual in nature, and thus barred by the six-year statute of limitations. See G. L. c. 260, § 2. Accepting this argument, the motion judge relied essentially on Nantucket v. Beinecke, 379 Mass. 345 (1979). Nantucket is inapposite. That case involved a claim under the Conflict of Interest Law, G. L. c. 268A (1986 ed.). The purpose of that law is to restrain municipal employees from maintaining a financial interest in contracts made by a municipal agency. Id. at 350. The subject matter of the action in Nantucket happened to concern a tax title deeded by certain town officials. Id. at 346.
InNantucket, the plaintiff argued that no statute of limitations should apply to actions under c. 268A. We rejected that claim. In order to find the applicable statute of limitations, the court looked to the “‘gist of the action’ or the essential nature of the plaintiff’s claim. ” Id. at 348, quoting Hendrickson v. Sears, 365 Mass. 83, 85 (1974). We concluded that “an action brought under G. L. c. 268A, § 21, sounds in tort.” Nantucket v. Beinecke, supra. Therefore, we held that the tort statute of limitations applies to such actions, “whether land is involved or not.” Nantucket, supra at 349.
Nantucket involved a claim predicated on an alleged conflict of interest, the essence of which is breach of official duty. A claim under c.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Liacos, J.
This case concerns the validity of a lease of a portion of the common areas owned by the Beaconsfield Towne House Condominium at 120 Beaconsfield Road, Brook-[481]*481line. The lease in issue purports to create a leasehold interest in twelve parking spaces for persons not members of the condominium trust. The trial judge treated the claim as one sounding in contract, and granted summary judgment for the defendant on the ground that G. L. c. 260, § 2 (1986 ed.), which imposes a six-year period of limitations on contract claims, barred the action. The plaintiff appealed, and we transferred the case to this court on our own motion. We agree with the plaintiff that the governing statute of limitations is G. L. c. 260, § 21 (1986 ed.), providing that actions to recover land must be commenced within twenty years after the cause of action accrues. Thus, we reverse the judgment.3
The plaintiff, Beaconsfield Towne House Condominium Trust, was created under G. L. c. 183 A, as amended, to manage the building and common facilities at 120 Beaconsfield Road, Brookline. Previously the defendant David Zussman had owned the property. On Decembers, 1970, David Zussman, conveyed the premises, including the parking spaces at issue, to his wife, the defendant Selma Zussman, in her capacity as trustee of the defendant 120 Beaconsfield Realty Trust. On June 10, 1977, Selma Zussman executed a written lease of the parking spaces to David Zussman as trustee of the defendant Davran-St. Paul Trust. On the same day, Selma Zussman conveyed the premises by master deed to the plaintiff, the newly-created Beaconsfield Towne House Condominium Trust, of which David Zussman was a trustee. On June 16, 1977, the lease and then the master deed were recorded contemporaneously at the Norfolk registry of deeds.4
The master deed states that it is subject to the lease, which runs for 155 years.5 Subsequent to the recording of the con[482]*482dominium trust master deed, Selma Zussman executed two purported amendments to the lease on June 29, 1977, and July 29, 1977, respectively. The first purported amendment deleted descriptions of certain parking areas, leaving intact only a list of numbered parking spaces. The second purported amendment, as relevant here, added a right of ingress and egress to allow access to the enumerated parking spaces.
The essence of the plaintiff’s claim is a violation of G. L. c. 183A, § 5 (c) (1986 ed.), in that the defendant’s lease of the parking spaces in question violated the statute’s explicit provisions prohibiting division of the common areas of the condominium.6 Although there are also allegations of breach of fiduciary obligations, the major aspect of the action concerns an interest in land.
This court has recognized that ownership of a condominium unit constitutes an interest in land. See Franklin v. Spadafora, 388 Mass. 764, 767 (1983) (trustees of a condominium have interest in land in condominium complex). The concept of condominiums as realty arguably existed even at common law,7 but began to flourish in contemporary times with the advent of enabling legislation. See Barclay v. DeVeau, 384 Mass. 676, 682 (1981), and articles cited. General Laws c. 183A (1986 ed.), originally enacted in 1963, St. 1963, c. 493, § 1, [483]*483was designed to “clarify the legal status of the condominium in light of its peculiar characteristics.” Grace v. Brookline, 379 Mass. 43, 52 (1979). We have recognized that the statute specifies certain minimum requirements for establishing condominiums. Tosney v. Chelmsford Village Condominium Ass’n, 397 Mass. 683, 686 (1986).
As part of these requirements, the statute contains a comprehensive scheme defining and governing the common areas of a condominium complex.8 Each unit owner is entitled to a proportional, undivided interest in such areas, G. L. c. 183A, § 5 (a), and this percentage interest cannot be altered absent the consent of all unit owners, c. 183A, § 5 (b).9 Furthermore, c. 183A, § 5 (c), mandates explicitly that the common areas must remain undivided, and that any covenant or provision to the contrary is null and void.10
“The statutory language, when clear and unambiguous, must be given its ordinary meaning. . . . When the use of the [484]*484ordinary meaning of a term yields a workable result, there is no need to resort to extrinsic aids such as legislative history. . . . Moreover, the statutory language is the principal source of insight into legislative purpose.” (Citations omitted.) Bronstein v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 390 Mass. 701, 704 (1984).11 The crux of the plaintiff’s claim under § 5 (c) is that the provision in the master deed referring to the lease of the parking spaces violates the clear statutory language prohibiting division of the common areas and is therefore null and void. The language of § 5 (c) is unambiguous. A claim under the section, whatever the merits of that claim may prove to be, constitutes an action concerning an interest in land.12
As noted above, under § 5 (b) the unanimous consent of all unit owners to an amendment of the master deed is required to change the percentage of the undivided interest of each owner in the common areas. The record contains no indication, nor do the defendants assert, that such consent was given. Therefore, it is immaterial whether the reference in the master deed to the lease constituted notice to present or subsequent unit owners.13
[485]*485The defendants argue, however, that the plantiff’s complaint is based on alleged fraudulent dealings, which is a claim essentially contractual in nature, and thus barred by the six-year statute of limitations. See G. L. c. 260, § 2. Accepting this argument, the motion judge relied essentially on Nantucket v. Beinecke, 379 Mass. 345 (1979). Nantucket is inapposite. That case involved a claim under the Conflict of Interest Law, G. L. c. 268A (1986 ed.). The purpose of that law is to restrain municipal employees from maintaining a financial interest in contracts made by a municipal agency. Id. at 350. The subject matter of the action in Nantucket happened to concern a tax title deeded by certain town officials. Id. at 346.
InNantucket, the plaintiff argued that no statute of limitations should apply to actions under c. 268A. We rejected that claim. In order to find the applicable statute of limitations, the court looked to the “‘gist of the action’ or the essential nature of the plaintiff’s claim. ” Id. at 348, quoting Hendrickson v. Sears, 365 Mass. 83, 85 (1974). We concluded that “an action brought under G. L. c. 268A, § 21, sounds in tort.” Nantucket v. Beinecke, supra. Therefore, we held that the tort statute of limitations applies to such actions, “whether land is involved or not.” Nantucket, supra at 349.
Nantucket involved a claim predicated on an alleged conflict of interest, the essence of which is breach of official duty. A claim under c. 268A could be rooted in a variety of transactions that municipal officials undertake, whether involving land or not. In contrast, an action under c. 183A, § 5, governing condominium common areas, solely concerns land. It therefore falls within the ambit of G. L. c. 260, § 21, conferring a twenty-year time limit on actions for recovery of land. Since the relevant statute of limitations is evident, application of the “essential nature” test used in Nantucket, supra, is unnecessary. Even under that test, however, the proper conclusion it dictates in this case is that the essential nature of this claim is of an interest in property and not that of a claim of breach of fiduciary obligation for procurement by fraud. In short, the proper issue in this case is whether the lease in issue is void as being in violation of G. L. c. 183A, § 5.14
[486]*486The judgment, in so far as it applied a six-year statute of limitations to the claim under c. 183A, § 5 (c), is reversed, and the case remanded for a trial on that claim.
So ordered.