original condominium documentation deserve a higher degree of deference than those promulgated by a condominium Board of Directors. We emphasize, however, that in the case at hand, we are dealing with a bylaw amendment that was passed many years after appellees bought their units. This is an important difference, because the application of the less restrictive standard is based upon the concept that the unit owners had notice of the recorded use restrictions when they purchased their units. In this case, the notice aspect is lacking. Some courts, although not directly considering amendments, have hinted that they would apply a stricter standard to amendments than to original provisions. Nahrstedt, supra, 878 P.2d at 1284; Noble v. Murphy, 34 Mass.App.Ct. 452, 612 N.E.2d 266, 270 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Bluffs of Wildwood Homeowners’ Ass’n v.
recognizing cause of action where plaintiffs allege fraud in inducing not the purchase of the bonds but their retention after purchase holding that purchase of search terms is a use in commerce holding after review of the more liberal fedrcivp 26b4 that the massachusetts rule is more restrictive with respect to allowance of expert depositions holding a defendant may not be convicted of more than one count of dissemination of matter harmful to minors based on one occurrence even if there was more than one victim recognizing that a condominium use restriction appearing in originating documents which predate that purchase of individual units may be subject to even more liberal review than if promulgated after units have been individually acquired