Landlord Not Returning a Security Deposit in Massachusetts


A landlord not returning a security deposit is one of the most common complaints that comes up between tenants and landlords in Massachusetts.  Massachusetts law heavily regulates the handling of security deposits, and this law can be used when a landlord improperly refuses to return a security deposit.

Massachusetts’s Security Deposit Law

A quick skim of Massachusetts’s security deposit law shows the complexity of this law.  G.L. 183 Section 5B regulates every aspect of a security deposit, from the acceptance of the deposit up to its return to the tenant.  The extensive requirements of this law is one reason why I advise Massachusetts landlords to never accept a security deposit.

Penalties for not complying with this law can be steep.  Some violations entitle the tenant to the immediate return of their deposit, and others permit the tenant to obtain triple damages, costs, and attorney fees against a landlord who fails to comply with this law.

What To Do About a Landlord Not Returning a Security Deposit 

If a landlord fails to return your security deposit, contact an experienced landlord/tenant attorney for assistance.  While the security deposit law offers numerous protections for tenants, an experienced attorney is often necessary for determining whether a violation occurred, how to pursue such a claim against the landlord, and the likely damages that can be obtained from such a case.

Landlords can equally benefit from having the assistance of an experienced attorney when handling a security deposit claim.  An attorney can help determine if a violation occurred and whether any possible defenses exists to such a claim.  An attorney can be helpful  in negotiating a settlement and minimizing damages.

A landlord should not wait until a security deposit claim has arisen to seek the assistance of a landlord/tenant attorney.  If you think you may be in violation of this law, or want help in making sure you comply with the law’s detailed requirements, speak to a landlord/tenant attorney right away.


If you find yourself involved with a security deposit matter, contact me for a consultation.  Having an experienced attorney on your side can make all of the difference in getting you the help you need.

Responding to a 93A Demand Letter

Massachusetts has an important law that is of critical importance to Massachusetts landlords: the Consumer Protection Law.  Commonly known as “Chapter 93A” (where this law is located in the Massachusetts statutes), the Consumer Protection Law prohibits “unfair and deceptive business practices.”  This, as one can tell, is broad language that can cover an infinite number of scenarios.  Courts have construed the reach of Chapter 93A broadly, to include many potential claims that are not otherwise covered by other existing laws.

For a consumer to bring a Consumer Protection Law claim, the claimant must generally send the business a demand letter prior to filing a lawsuit.  For a landlord, responding to a 93A demand letter is incredibly important.  The failure in responding to a 93A demand letter can come with steep penalties if the matter ends up in court.

I always advise a landlord (and anyone else who receives such a letter) to hire an attorney when responding to a 93A demand letter.  Even if the demand appears to be without merit, it is worth having a legal professional ensure that you are handling the complaint properly.  Here are a few points that should be considered when responding to a 93A demand letter.

Is the Landlord Covered Under the Consumer Protection Law?

First, is the landlord covered under the Consumer Protection Law?  The general rule is that a person or business who rents residential space for a fee is engaged in business, and would be subject to Chapter 93A.  However, there is an exception if the landlord lives in the subject property, and is merely renting a unit in the building.  Courts have found that in such cases, the landlord is not a business.  An experienced landlord/tenant attorney can help determine this for you, and whether or not you might be subject to Chapter 93A.

Does the Demand Letter Satisfy the Requirements of a 93A Demand Letter? 

The second inquiry when responding to a 93A demand letter is whether the demand letter satisfies the Consumer Protection Law requirements.  Contrary to popular belief, simply calling a demand letter a Chapter 93A demand does not make it compliant with Consumer Protection Law.  Rather, the law has specific requirements on what needs to go into the letter.  The failure to send a proper demand letter can have severe consequences: in some cases, courts have thrown out a Consumer Protection Law lawsuit for not complying with the demand letter requirement.

Responding to a 93A Demand Letter

Regardless of the above, a landlord should always respond to a 93A demand letter.  Even if the claim is meritless, or the landlord is not covered by Chapter 93A, the failure to respond can be disastrous if the matter ends up in court.

In responding to a 93A demand letter, an attorney can help you determine whether to make a reasonable settlement offer.  Because Chapter 93A generally requires a demand letter before starting a lawsuit, the law (and judges who hear these cases) strongly favor resolution of these matters without litigation.  The Consumer Protection Law gives landlords strong incentives for settling these cases out-of-court, and strong penalties if the court believes that the landlord should have resolved the matter without the court’s involvement.


Responding to a 93A demand letter is important.  If you find yourself in receipt of one of these demand letters, contact an experience attorney for assistance.


Guest Blog Post: 2017 Eviction Appeal Recap


The Massachusetts Landlord Tenant Blog is pleased to have Attorney Joseph N. Schneiderman guest blog on 2017’s major eviction appeal decisions .  Attorney  Schneiderman is an appellate attorney licensed in Massachusetts and Connecticut and may be contacted at

The year 2017 was a busy time in the realm of the law of summary process. Beyond the expansion of the Housing Court, the Supreme Judicial Court and the Appeals Court have heard and issued significant eviction appeal decisions that landlord-tenant and Housing Court practitioners should be familiar with.

Summary Process and Harassment Prevention Orders

First, in C.E.R. v. P.C., 91 Mass. App. Ct. 124 (2017), the Appeals Court emphatically held that harassment prevention orders under G.L. c.258E could not become functional shortcuts or substitutes for summary process. The facts do not flatter the defendants; they were two roommates renting a room from the plaintiff, who was about to sell the home.  Suffice it to say that the roommates engaged in boorish conduct involving sex, drugs, and rock and roll. The situation eventually boiled over to the point of the plaintiff obtaining an ex parte harassment prevention order in the Ipswich District Court. The judge later extended it for one year, effectively forcing the defendants to leave the home.

Although the Appeals Court vacated the orders for insufficient evidence of harassment, the Appeals Court also emphasized that such orders could not be “used as a short-cut for evicted tenants without following summary process procedures.” 91 Mass. App. Ct. at 132. More particularly, the plaintiff repeatedly asserted that she wanted the orders to “induce the defendants to leave without interfering with the rental or sale of the property.”  The police who responded in turn suggested she obtain a lawyer and during the proceedings,  “the defendants had already begun to move out.” The trial judge also hinted that the plaintiff was attempting to avoid summary process-echoing a similar past case.

Practitioners and judges alike should also be aware of how landlords may attempt to employ harassment prevention orders as functional summary process substitutes. Tenant bad behavior should not be condoned. But summary process is the means to redress it-not Chapter 258E. If you have questions, check the dockets in the District Court as defendants have a right to obtain the orders, even though portions of the orders are confidential. G.L. c.258E, §10. If there’s pushback from a Clerk, move for relief from impoundment.

Moreover, evidence that there was no reasonable basis for a harassment prevention order may defeat an Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, think a Donald Trump suing a little guy just for the sake of suing him) motion. Compare Van Liew v. Stansfeld, 474 Mass. 31 (2016), citing G.L. c.231, §59H. Even with changes in Anti-SLAPP this year, an unjustified harassment prevention order or Anti-SLAPP order may constitute retaliatory conduct to trigger treble damages under c.186, §14. But those questions are for another day. For now, be mindful of this possibility.

Termination of a Section 8 Lease, Right to a Jury Trial in an Eviction Case

In CMJ Management v. Wilkerson, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 276 (2017), the Appeals Court held that a tenant’s child’s criminal conduct justified termination of a Section 8 lease-but that the same tenant had been unlawfully deprived of her right to a jury trial. The tenant had custody of her fourteen year old grandson, who shot and fired a BB gun that injured two fellow juveniles.  Although no delinquency charges followed, the eviction occurred.

The Appeals Court rejected the tenant’s argument that the juvenile’s conduct did not constitute criminal activity. Admittedly, the juvenile’s conduct violated a statute that only provided for a fine.  However, the lease unambiguously forbade criminal activity by any tenant, member of a tenant’s household and threatened the well being of fellow tenants.  There was no distinction between juveniles and adults in the lease. Thus, termination was proper.

Although the Appeals Court’s analysis is literally correct, Massachusetts law has always treated juveniles charged with crime  as different in kind from adult offenders. Indeed, “as far as practicable [juveniles charged with crimes ] shall be treated, not as criminals, but as children in need of aid, encouragement and guidance.” G.L. c.119, §53.

Practically speaking, Juvenile Court judges have broad flexibility to deal with juveniles facing delinquency charges to further their best interests. The question for more than 100 years has always been: “What shall be done with this child?” not, how do we punish and deter this child?   Indeed, not only was there was no guarantee that a complaint would issue against a juvenile, but if a complaint had issued, the judge could have dismissed the complaint before arraignment-which would mean that no CARI record would exist Compare Commonwealth v. Humberto H.,  a juvenile, 466 Mass. 562 (2013).

To be certain, summary process and delinquency are different proceedings in kind. However, to deprive a juvenile of his housing, housing he very likely has no control over and must rely on an adult to obtain, is a sufficiently adverse collateral consequence that the consequence effectively defies the command not to treat him as a criminal. This is curiously absent from the Appeals Court’s analysis. This issue also underpinned an ultimately unsuccessful application for further appellate review by the Supreme Judicial Court. See Docket No. FAR-25267.

Practitioners who have clients with family members facing delinquency complaints should keep abreast of this issue. This collateral consequence is substantial and potentially irrationally  treats the juvenile as a criminal. Whether or not Section 8 pre-empts G.L. c.119, §53 (or conversely, that applying Section 8 to a child within the ambit of G.L. c.119, §53 violates the 10th Amendment as unconstitutional strongarming) is a thorny and novel issue-for another day. Compare Boston Housing Authority v. Garcia, 449 Mass. 727 (2007).

On the jury trial issue, the Appeals Court held that the judge’s action striking the tenant’s jury claim amounted to disproportionate sanction. The tenant answered by asserting a jury claim but did not file a pre-trial memorandum to press her claim although the Landlord had-and indeed, the Landlord proposed instructions. The tenant  admitted that she did not understand the pre-trial memorandum. The judge replied, “I can’t let you go forward …without a pre-trial memorandum.” 91 Mass. App. Ct. at 281-282.

The Appeals Court held that the tenant’s answer sufficed to timely demand and assert her jury claim. Two factors mitigated against implying that the tenant waived the jury trial. First, Housing Court Standing Order No. 1-04 specifically imbued judges with power to allow tardy motions and other pleadings since many parties were self-represented. Second, Art. 15 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights specifically guaranteed a right to a jury trial in eviction trials. 91 Mass. App. Ct. at 284-285, citing New Bedford Housing Authority v. Olan, 435 Mass. 364, 370 (2001).

A judge should therefore approach striking a jury demand cautiously. Although the tenant had notice of the possibility of striking the demand as a  sanction, the judge abused her discretion by striking the demand. Indeed, the tenant attempted to understand the memorandum and striking the demand would not serve as a deterrent sanction.

What’s the take-away? If you represent someone who was self-represented, avail yourself not only of Standing Order 1-04-and Mass. R. Civ. Pro. 15 (to amend or conform pleadings.) Indeed, Rule 15 favors granting amendments-there needs to be prejudice to overcome that presumption. Dockets and court files can be messy-indeed, self-represented litigants may try to litigate by paper deluge. These rules are a powerful solvent for counsel to clean them up. If there’s a question about a jury trial, make sure it’s in the answer-and emphasize that striking a jury demand should be a last resort because of the constitutional and statutory implications. And, cite this case!

Waiver of a Jury Trial in an Eviction Case

Cort v. Majors, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 151 (2017) followed Wilkerson.  The case was a typical summary process case; tenant and landlord were self-represented, tenant stopped paying rent, landlord sought eviction, tenant counterclaimed.  After the landlord’s testimony and during his own testimony, the tenant said, “I’d like a jury.” The judge responded that the tenant waived that right, to the tenant’s surprise. “You didn’t tell me that.” 92 Mass. App. Ct. at 152. The trial concluded in the landlord’s favor.  The question on appeal was whether the tenant had indeed waived his jury trial.

The Appeals Court held that he had not. The Appeals Court recalled that generally, Housing Court trials were bench trials unless constitutionally required. Article 15 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights guaranteed a jury trial, Mass. R. Civ. Pro. 38(a) incorporated and implemented that right, and Uniform Summary Process Rule 8 implemented that right in summary process trials. Mass. R. Civ. Pro. 39 in turn only provided for a waiver of a jury trial if there was a written or oral stipulation. Because the tenant demanded a jury trial in his answer, the issue was whether the tenant executed a valid oral stipulation.

The Appeals Court held he had not. Although the tenant answered ready for trial, this response to the judge was not a waiver of his right to a jury trial.  Nor was there any suggestion that the tenant authorized the judge “to decide or knowingly relinquished his right to a jury trial.” Rather, under Rules 38 and 39, if there is a valid jury demand, a judge had a duty to “affirmatively inquire of the parties, before any witness is sworn, whether the case will proceed with or without a jury [this was not…] satisfied by commencing a bench trial and awaiting an objection by a party.”  The Appeals Court recognized that many self-represented litigants appeared in the Housing Court. However, Rules 38 and 39 meant what they said-and a judge could still explain the differences to a party.

The two cases above represent robust reinforcement of the rights to a jury trial. The Appeals Court recognize the competing demands on Housing Court judges to, on the one hand, maintain efficient proceedings but also respect the rights of tenants-who are often self-represented and ill-suited to understand assert them. Only the clearest and most unequivocal conduct will amount to a waiver of the jury trial right. Like in the criminal context, judges must engage with tenants to ensure that they are knowingly and clearly and unambiguously waiving their jury trial rights. The Appeals Court also recognizes that Housing Court judges can carry out this duty easily by discussing and informing tenants of this right.

Damages in an Eviction Case

South Boston Elderly Residences v. Moynahan, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 455 (2017) further elucidates damages in the landlord-tenant context. Moynahan lived in a small (450 square feet) unit that suffered from perpetual moisture and mold problems. Conditions eventually deteriorated to the point of mushrooms growing in the carpeting-the landlord refused to address in light of clutter.

Boston Inspectional Services eventually cited the landlord-who in turn served a notice to quit in October 2011 and refused to cash rent checks. Moynahan returned to the apartment but discovered inadequate ventilation-and a second and third summary process action followed. A three day trial ensued-and the trial judge refused to award any rent abatement damages for moisture or mold before August 2011 or for fall of that year because Moynahan prevented repairs. The judge also found that Moynahan rebutted the presumption of in retaliation due to clutter and sustained non-payment of rent.

Although the Appeals Court sympathized with Moynahan’s plight, ultimately, the code violation relative to moisture and mold were minor and did not cause problems until May 2012. Thus, the findings of fact were not clearly erroneous to warrant damages. 91 Mass. App. Ct. at 462-464.  Moreover, since Moynahan prevented access for repairs and had access to another nearby apartment, he only established lack of access to an adequate unit for three months of five –and the judge did not err in only awarding him one month.

Regarding ventilation damages, the judge erred in so far as he based an abatement award to Moynahan as a proverbial eggshell plaintiff, or easily subject to injury due to the lack of ventilation and lack of access to windows. Rather, since a breach of warranty of habitability supported contract and tort damages, the landlord had to take Moynahan as he found him. Since the judge applied an incorrect legal standard while partially crediting Moynahan’s testimony about breathing conditions, the Appeals Court remanded. 91 Mass. App. Ct. at 465-467.

The Appeals Court however found that the judge’s finding that the landlord overcame the presumption of retaliation by clear and convincing was clearly erroneous. Although the landlord complained about the issue in March 2010, there was no evidence that Moynahan was hoarding or making it worse before the notice to quite in October 2011. Nor did the landlord act to correct it until after Moynahan called in inspectional services. Thus, Moynahan deserved statutory damages of up to three months rent or actual damages.

However, Moynahan had not established damages for c.93A. To be certain, the code violation, in and of itself, violated c.93A. But the landlord had acted to cure the violation and since Moynahan had not presented any evidence of a violation before August 2011, Moynahan had no right to 93A damages. Finally, with regards to quiet enjoyment, although unauthorized entry could amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment, the record simply did not bear it out as unreasonable-there was only incident where Moynahan did not desire the landlord’s entry but sought it for another day-which was to address repairs.

There are many possible takeaways from this case. First, a breach of the warranty of habitability should not simply be based on market or contractual damages-it should stem from actual damages a tenant suffers. Moreover, controverting retaliation cannot occur in a vacuum. The landlord must put forth real and specific evidence that the eviction was completely independent of the complaints about conditions. This dovetails with the heightened burden of proof.

This case though stands in marked contrast to the Leisure Woods case holding that c.93A damages are available for per se violations of the regulations governing manufactured housing. Although regulatory violations do constitute c.93A violations, the tenant still has to prove that the violation is continuing-which the landlord can mitigate. Like Leisure Woods however, this case creates the potential for mischief: viz. a lack of incentive for landlords to cure damages by undervaluing damages. Hopefully, the Supreme Judicial Court or the Legislature will cure or clarify this confusion.

Lurking in the background of this case are questions of hoarding.  This case does not squarely present or involve the question of how a landlord’s response to hoarding may or may not mitigate tenant damages. The factual record of this case is also unclear at best as to whether or not the tenant was indeed a hoarder due to the cramped conditions in the apartment. But, that discreet legal question will have to wait for another day.

Trespass in an Eviction Case

Finally, in Federal National Mortgage v. Gordon, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 527 (2017), the Appeals Court recognized on the one hand that the Housing Court could hear a common law trespass claim. However, the Appeals Court reaffirmed that a post-foreclosure could not bring a trespass action, especially if the holdover tenants claimed leasehold rights after foreclosure.  The defendant tenants had a mortgage that they fell behind on. Following a foreclosure and during a summary process action, the tenants apparently executed a lease and one tenant moved out. The trespass action followed.

The Appeals Court recalled that the scope of the subject matter jurisdiction of the Housing Court was a classically thorny issue. On the one hand, the Housing Court was a court of limited jurisdiction but could also hear matters, including tort or contract actions, related directly or indirectly to the health, safety and welfare of any occupant or place used for human habitation. 91 Mass. App. Ct. at 531-532, citing G.L. c.185C, §3.  The presence of trespassers “will, in many cases, affect the health, safety and welfare of an owner or occupant” and thus was a tort action relating to health, safety and welfare. The Housing Court thus had subject matter jurisdiction.

However,  the action for was trespass was impermissible. The Appeals Court recalled that G.L. c.184, §18 proscribed any attempt to recover land except pursuant to summary process or any other proceeding authorized by law. For twenty-five years, the Supreme Judicial Court held that a foreclosure sale was not a “proceeding authorized by law” as the purchasers entered lawfully and were holdover tenants. Indeed, the tenants had no duty to inquire about the landlord’s status-and had not forcibly entered. Finally, there was no evidence in the record that the bank had constructive possession-any lapse between one tenant and the other tenant was too brief to indicate a possessory surrender-the record indicated otherwise.

This case reaffirms that summary process essentially occupies the field in post-foreclosure matters. To proceed on a trespass action, the bank has to overcome the command of Section 18 and show a forcible entry. A person’s mere presence is not enough-nor can they be imputed with knowledge that a bank does or does not own property. Only a true squatter or someone else who otherwise has no interest qualifies.

The case also represents another case in the long line delineating the subject matter jurisdiction of the Housing Court. Trespass certainly does, as the Appeals Court held, implicate the health, safety, and welfare of human occupants. The trickier issue will be how that plays out in a particular case in the Housing Court-and whether or not Housing Court dockets will see more actions.


These eviction appeal decisions show that this area of law continues to be changing, and practitioners need to be aware of these recent decisions.  The benefits of having an experienced appellate attorney for an eviction appeal cannot be overstated.

Advice for Moving in Boston

Advice for Moving

As hard as it is to believe, summer is about to end, meaning that Boston’s unofficial “moving day” is about to begin.  With dozens of college and graduate students, young professionals, and other renters in the Boston area, the beginning of September is the busiest time of the year for moving.  If you are one of the many who will be moving this week, here is some advice for moving.  While this is aimed for those in Boston, this advice generally pertains to any landlord or tenant in Massachusetts.

Get Everything in Writing and Save Copies For Yourself

Arguably the most important advice for moving is to get everything in writing, and keep copies for yourself.  If you’re signing a lease, giving or accepting first and last month’s rent, or otherwise agreeing to an particular term of your tenancy, you want this in writing.  Just as important, be sure you keep copies for yourself.

Take Photos of An Apartment When Moving In and Out

If you are moving in or out of an apartment, take advantage of your smartphone’s camera and take pictures of your unit.  Disputes over the condition of a rental unit can easily be resolved if the tenant or landlord has photographic evidence of the apartment.  Even if you are certain that no problems will arise, take five minutes and do this simple step.  Even better, ask a friend or family member to come with you to the apartment, so you have a witness if such a problem does come up.  This is a simple piece of advice for moving that can make all the difference later on.

Know What to Do About Poor Conditions in a Rental Unit 

Another important piece of advice for moving is to know what to do if your apartment is not in the condition it is suppose to be.  In such a case, you should immediately contact the landlord, report the problem (in writing), and give the landlord an opportunity to correct the defects.  If the landlord fails to take care of it, you can file a complaint with the City of Boston Inspectional Services (if you are renting outside of Boston, contact your town or city government for the appropriate agency to file a complaint).

It is important to know that a landlord cannot retaliate against a tenant for filing such a complaint.  In other words, the landlord cannot “punish” a tenant by evicting them or changing the terms of their tenancy.

For landlords, be certain to address complaints in an apartment promptly.  Failure to do so can lead to larger problems down the road.

Be Aware of Massachusetts’s Security Deposit Law

Massachusetts has one of the strictest security deposit laws in the country.  This law is so long and detailed that most do not understand all of its provisions, and many landlords fail to comply with it.  For this reason, I advise that landlords do not accept a security deposit.  If you are a landlord and have accepted a security deposit, consider speaking to a landlord-tenant attorney to ensure you are in compliance with this law.

For tenants, problems with security deposits often arise when tenants attempt to get their deposits back.  If you are having such a problem, an attorney may be able to help.  Massachusetts’s security deposit law provides for attorney fees and treble damages against landlords who do not follow this law.

Don’t Get “Storrowed”

In addition to always having traffic, Storrow Drive is known for being a “trap for the unwary” on moving day.  Trucks are not allowed on this parkway, and each year, at least one renter makes the news for getting stuck under one of Storrow Drive’s many bridges.  Don’t let this be you.

If you need help with a landlord-tenant matter, contact me for a consultation.

Help With A Security Deposit

Help With A Security Deposit

Both tenants and landlords can benefit from help with a security deposit.  Massachusetts’s security deposit law is not light reading, and often requires even the most experienced landlord-tenant attorney to review the law more than once to understand its many, many provisions.  An experienced attorney can often provide invaluable help with a security deposit matter.

Landlords Who Have Accepted A Security Deposit From a Tenant

I, along with many other attorneys (as well as a former Housing Court judge) recommend that landlords do not take a security deposit from a tenant.  The law has too many requirements for a landlord to comply with, and the risks of violating the law are steep, which can include treble damages, attorney fees, and costs.

For landlords, help with a security deposit often involves determining whether a landlord complied with the law’s detailed requirements.  If a landlord has erred in holding one of these deposits, an attorney can often help assist a landlord in avoiding or minimizing the damages that can arise from violating this law.

If you’re a landlord, don’t make the assumption that you need to wait until a problem arises to get help with a security deposit.  A consultation with a landlord-tenant attorney can often help determine if you have violated any part of the law, and determine the best way to avoid a larger problem down the road.

Tenants Who Cannot Get Their Security Deposits Back

For tenants, help with a security deposit often involves legal action against a landlord for failing to properly return a deposit.  Massachusetts’s security deposit law explicitly provides for attorney fees in such cases: the purpose being to give tenants incentives for pursuing these claims.  A landlord-tenant attorney can help you determine if you have grounds for pursuing a security deposit claim and the best court for pursuing such a matter.


I provide assistance to both landlords and tenants with security deposit matters.  My experience in representing both types of clients provides me a unique perspective on this area of law.  If you find yourself in need of help with a security deposit matter, contact me for a consultation.



Top Five Landlord Mistakes

Landlord Mistakes

In this blog post, I want to discuss the top five landlord mistakes made by those renting residential property in Massachusetts.   Massachusetts has numerous laws protecting tenants, and a landlord’s failure to comply with these regulations can cause major problems down the road.  Fortunately, these landlord mistakes are easily avoidable.

 1.  Accepting a Security Deposit From a Tenant

Few things get a landlord into more trouble than Massachusetts’s security deposit law.  Take a minute (or several!), attempt to figure out all of this law’s requirements, and you’ll learn quickly why the law is a disaster waiting to happen.  Few landlords comply with all of the law’s detailed requirements, and the failure to do so can result in treble damages, attorney fees, and costs.  The risks for landlords just aren’t worth it.

As I have suggested before, a landlord who wants a security deposit should make this part of their monthly rent.  For example, if a landlord wants a $1,200 security deposit, they should add (or set aside) $100 each month, rather than requesting it upfront from the tenant.  This keeps a landlord from having to comply with the security deposit requirements.  Moreover, unlike a security deposit, this money belongs to the landlord if no repairs need to be done at the end of the tenancy.

2.  Not Choosing Tenants Carefully 

Another common landlord mistake is not choosing tenants carefully.  A bad tenant can cause enormous problems to landlords.  Evictions can be long and expensive, and collecting a judgment against a tenant can be difficult.  Try to avoid these problems in the first place by selecting  reputable tenants.

3.  Not Using a Written Rental Agreement 

Landlords should always use a written rental agreement with tenants, regardless of whether it is a a month-to-month agreement or lease.  A written agreement lays out all of the expectations of the landlord and tenant, and can avoid problems from coming up later on.  Moreover, if a landlord expects a tenant to pay for any of the apartment’s utilities, a written agreement is a requirement under the state sanitary code.

4.  Failing to Maintain Rental Property

If you own rental property, the law requires you to maintain it.  Massachusetts’s state sanitary code contains detailed regulations for rental property, and many towns and cities have their own requirements for rental property as well.  A tenant must generally provide notice, and a reasonable opportunity to the landlord to address the problem, before the landlord can become liable for not maintaining the property, but a landlord should avoid these problems in the first place by keeping on top of a rental property’s maintenance and care.

5.  Attempting an Eviction Without An Attorney 

If a landlord needs to get rid of a tenant, an eviction is required.  A landlord should never try and do an eviction on their own.  While it may be tempting to try and avoid the costs of an eviction, the consequences of making a mistake in one of these cases can be far more expensive down the line.  Moreover, an experienced landlord attorney can often help finds ways to make the eviction process go as quickly as possible.

If you find yourself in need of legal assistance, contact me for a consultation.

How Long Does an Eviction Take?

How long does an eviction take in Massachusetts?  Answering that question is like a weatherman stating what the weather is going to be the next day: an expert can give a good prediction, but many unknown factors can make a big difference in the ultimate outcome.

Beginning a Massachusetts Eviction Case

The beginning of a Massachusetts eviction case is an important consideration in determining how long one of these cases will ultimately take.  To start an eviction, a landlord is required to send a notice to quit, which informs the tenant that their tenancy is over.  The timeframe under one of these notices depends on the reason for eviction, and are usually anywhere from seven to thirty days.

Filing An Eviction Case

Following the service of a notice to quit, the landlord must file the eviction case.  Unlike a typical lawsuit, where the lawsuit is filed with the court and then served on the party, in an eviction case, the opposite happens: the eviction case paperwork is served on the tenant first, and then filed with the court.  This notice must be served on the tenant at a minimum, seven days before it is filed with the court (and not more than thirty days).

Discovery, Trial

The next factor in determining how long an eviction takes is whether the tenant(s) request discovery and a jury trial.

Discovery is the right of a party to learn information from the opposing side, through interrogatories (written questions) and request for documents.  A request for discovery automatically postpones an eviction trial by two weeks.  Depending on the amount of information requested, discovery may take even longer.

A defendant in an eviction case has a right to a jury trial.  Unlike bench trials, which are held before a single judge, a jury trial requires the calling of potential jurors by a court, and usually happens on select days at a court.  As such, a request for a jury trial typically also pushes back an eviction case, depending upon the court’s trial schedule.


The above are some of the many factors that help answer how long  an eviction in Massachusetts take.  Generally, an uncontested eviction will take between one to two months.  A contested eviction, with requests for discovery and a jury trial, can take anywhere from three to six months.

Having an experienced attorney on your side can make a huge difference in moving one of these cases along, and getting you the results you need.  Contact me for a consultation.

Returning a Security Deposit


Rule number one for Massachusetts landlords: never, never take a security deposit.  As I have written before, the risks just aren’t worth it.  The Massachusetts Security Deposit Law is one of the most complex and detailed laws on the books, with numerous traps for the unwary.  Failing to follow one of the law’s requirements can result in treble damages, attorney fees, and costs against the landlord.  As such, a $1,000 security deposit can easily result in $4,000-$5,000 in damages against a landlord if the security deposit law is not strictly followed.

An important part of this law concerns returning a security deposit.  Returning a security deposit would seemingly be an easy task, with the landlord simply taking the required amount of damages from the deposit and returning the balance to the tenant.  The security deposit law, however, has detailed requirements for how this must be done.  Failing to comply with even the most minor requirements of this law can result in enormous damages to the landlord.

How should a landlord handle returning a security deposit?  Contact a landlord/tenant attorney.  An attorney can help ensure that each of these requirements are complied with and save time, money, and heartache down the road.  While it may seem “overkill” to hire an attorney for such a seemingly small matter, doing so can avoid an even bigger problem resulting for a violation of this law.

Tenants who are having problems with getting their security deposits back should also speak to a landlord/tenant attorney.  The aim of the Massachusetts Security Deposit Law is to avoid having tenants lose their security deposits without cause, and provides relief for violations of this law.

Levying An Execution

Levying an execution in a Massachusetts eviction case is the process by which a landlord, if they are successful in the eviction, is permitted to remove the tenant’s belongings from the rental property.

An execution for possession is a legal document that a court issues if it determines that a landlord is entitled to possession of the rental property.  This occurs if the tenant defaults in the case (does not show up to court) or if the landlord prevails at trial.  Following the court’s judgment, the tenant has ten days to appeal the decision.  If the tenant appeals, the execution will not issue, pending the appeal’s resolution.  If the tenant does not appeal, the clerk’s office will issue the execution.

After the execution is issued, the landlord must levy it.  Levying an execution must be done by a Massachusetts sheriff or constable; a landlord cannot remove a tenant’s possessions on their own (doing so will get the landlord into serious trouble).  A sheriff or constable is required to provide the tenant with 48 hours notice prior to levying the execution.  Moreover, the landlord is responsible for making arrangements to store the tenant’s property after the execution has been levied.  Needless to say, the costs of levying an execution can be significant: it is not unusual for this process to cost thousands of dollars.

A tenant facing the levying of an execution has the option of requesting that the court stay the execution.  Under certain circumstances, the court will permit a tenant to stay beyond the time otherwise allowed.

Landlords should always be cognizant of the reality that levying an execution is time consuming and expensive.  Whenever possible, landlords should attempt to work out resolutions with tenants that avoid this burdensome process.

Does a Landlord Need a Reason for Terminating a Tenancy?

Does a landlord need a reason for terminating a tenancy?  The answer depends on the type of tenancy that exists between the landlord and tenant.

In a tenancy at will, the rental agreement between the landlord and tenant continues until either party chooses to end it.  As an agreement “at will”, either party is free to end the tenancy simply by providing adequate notice to the other side.  Tenancies at will are generally month-to-month rental agreements, which requires the landlord to provide the tenant with thirty days notice prior to ending the tenancy.  The landlord, importantly, does not need to provide the tenant with a reason for terminating the tenancy.

In contrast, a tenancy by lease, where the rental term is fixed by the terms of an agreement, generally requires a reason for terminating the tenancy.  Here, the terms of the agreement generally defines the grounds for terminating the tenancy, and the type of notice that the landlord must provide to the tenant.  Such an eviction is known as a “for cause” eviction for that reason: the landlord must have a reason for terminating the tenancy.  This generally occurs when the tenant has broken one of the terms of the lease.  A landlord can also terminate a tenancy by lease for non-payment of rent.  Absent one of these reasons, a landlord cannot arbitrarily terminate a lease agreement (unless the agreement provides for this).  This is one of the benefits of a lease: a tenant is guaranteed a place to rent for a set period of time.

Regardless of the type of tenancy, there are limitations on the grounds that a landlord can use to terminate a tenancy.  A landlord can never discriminate against a tenant on the grounds of race, ethnicity, religion, or one of the other protected classes of discrimination under state and federal law.  Similarly, a landlord can never retaliate  (“punish”) a tenant by terminating a lease due to a tenant’s reporting of bad conditions in a rental unit.  A landlord who terminates a tenancy for one of these reasons can get into huge trouble, and be liable for large monetary damages.

If you find yourself in a situation involving the termination of a tenancy, contact me for a consultation.