Notice to Quit for Massachusetts Evictions

The Supreme Judicial Court issued an important decision this week clarifying the notice to quit requirement for Massachusetts evictions. The decision, Cambridge Street Realty v. Stewart, is included below.

Cambridge Street Realty concerns several legal issues that are of importance to Massachusetts eviction law. Here, I’ll focus on the decision’s discussion of the notice to quit, which is a requirement for nearly all evictions in Massachusetts.

What is a Notice to Quit?

A notice to quit is a legal document informing a tenant that the landlord is terminating their tenancy. This is required for nearly all evictions in Massachusetts and requires the landlord to prove that it served one of these notices to the tenant, prior to starting an eviction. Failure to provide an adequate notice to quit is often grounds for dismissing an eviction case.

The time required in the notice to quit generally depends upon the type of tenancy and the reason for eviction. In Cambridge Street Realty, the tenant was in Section 8 housing, which is federally subsidized and generally has additional, specific requirements for such a notice. Here, the tenant alleged that the notice to quit was defective, but only raised this argument after the eviction case was over.

What Does a Defective Notice Mean For An Eviction Case?

The Court in Cambridge Street Realty needed to determine what impact a defective notice to quit has on an eviction. Here, the tenant argued that a notice to quit is a jurisdictional requirement, meaning that the failure to provide an adequate notice to quit could be raised at any time . . . even after the eviction is over.

The Court rejected this argument. While a notice to quit is a requirement for most evictions, a tenant must adequately raise a defective notice as part of their eviction defense. Failure to do so means that the tenant waived the right to challenge the eviction on these grounds. As such, a tenant is unable to come back to court later and attempt to reverse an eviction, by arguing that the original notice to quit was in error.

Practical Implications

Cambridge Street Realty is an important win for Massachusetts landlords. Making a notice to quit a jurisdictional requirement for evictions would have had precarious implications for landlords. Such an outcome could have conceivably allowed a tenant to void an eviction well after it occurred, leaving possession of a rental apartment in flux.

It would, however, be shortsighted to interpret Cambridge Street Realty as diminishing the notice to quit requirement for Massachusetts evictions. A tenant who does raise the adequacy of a notice to quit in court will be heard on this issue, and will be successful if the landlord provided the tenant with an improper notice. This is one reason, among many, that Massachusetts landlords should consider speaking with a landlord-tenant attorney for assistance with an eviction.

Cambridge-Street-Realty-LLC-v.-Stewart

Five Things That All Massachusetts Landlords Need to Know

Being a Massachusetts landlord isn’t easy.   There are many, many cases of landlords who have run afoul of the state’s numerous laws regulating landlord conduct; most of which favor the tenant.  Here are five things that  every Massachusetts landlord needs to know.

1. A Landlord is Responsible for Maintaining Rental Property

While this may be obvious to most landlords, it is worth a mention here.  A landlord is responsible for maintaining their rental property, including compliance with the state’s sanitary code.

This is in contrast to commercial real estate, where a landlord is permitted to offer a property “as is.”  Doing this is strictly prohibited for residential property; even if a landlord and tenant signed an agreement that excused a landlord from taking care of a rental property, it would be void and unenforceable at law.

2. Fair Housing Laws Exist  (And Are Enforced)

Both federal and Massachusetts law ban housing discrimination.  Housing discrimination laws are enforced, and come with steep penalties for landlords who violate these provisions.  A Massachusetts landlord needs to know these laws and be aware of the kind of conduct that violates these regulations.  

3. Security Deposits Are Heavily Regulated in Massachusetts

Massachusetts’s security deposit law is among the most complex and confusing laws in the state, filled with traps for the unwary.   Few Massachusetts landlords fully comply with its provisions, and failure to do so can result in treble damages, attorney fees, and costs against a landlord.  Massachusetts landlords should strongly consider not taking a security deposit.  If they do, it is essential that they learn and abide by this law’s detailed requirements. 

4. Good Tenants Are a Good Investment 

What’s the best way to avoid problems with tenants?  Choose good tenants.  The extra time and expense in picking good candidates for rental units are worth its expense, many, many times over. 

5. Evictions Are Costly

Massachusetts law permits a landlord to bring an eviction against a tenant for outstanding rent, and a civil action for damage to a rental unit.  However, even under the best case scenario, it is rare for a landlord to be made completely whole through an eviction proceeding or lawsuit.  The expenses of bringing such a case, and the difficulties of enforcing one of these judgments, are factors that every Massachusetts landlord needs to know.

Conclusion

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

Chapter 93A for Landlords and Tenants

The Appeals Court issued an important decision this week about the Consumer Protection Law (commonly known as “Chapter 93A”, in reference to its location in the state law) and its potential application for landlords and tenants.  The decision, Exhibit Source, Inc. v. Wells Avenue Business Center, is included below.

This decision concerns a dispute involving a commercial landlord-tenant relationship.  Nonetheless, this case has important lessons in the context of Chapter 93A for landlords and tenants with residential tenancies.

Overview of Chapter 93A

Chapter 93A prohibits “unfair or deceptive” business practices.  There are two main parts of this law: Section 9, for unfair or deceptive practices between consumers and businesses, and Section 11,  for unfair or deceptive practices between businesses.  While the concept of the law is generally the same for both sections, the requirements for each are slightly different.  Here, I’ll be focusing on Section 9.

“Unfair or deceptive” business practices is purposely intended to be broad, and allows for a wide array of potential applications.  Chapter 93A allows for monetary damages for violation of this law, and possible treble damages if the conduct was willful or knowing.  The law, importantly, allows for attorney fees as well.

For a consumer to bring a Chapter 93A case, they must send the business a demand letter first and allow them thirty days to respond, before filing suit.  This letter is not required if the consumer is bringing a Chapter 93A case as a counterclaim (a lawsuit filed in response to an existing lawsuit).  A letter is also not required if the business does not have an office or assets in Massachusetts.

This demand letter is a critical requirement for a Chapter 93A case.  Failure to comply with this requirement is often grounds for dismissal.

Chapter 93A for Landlords and Tenants

Exhibit Source, Inc. has several important lessons on how Chapter 93A applies to landlords and tenants.

First, Exhibit Source, Inc. is a good example of  Chapter 93A’s breadth.  Many acts, which might not otherwise be unlawful, can fall within the context of Chapter 93A, making it a powerful tool in pursuing a landlord-tenant dispute.

Second, Exhibit Source, Inc. discusses a central goal of this law: encouraging parties to settle their disputes without going to court.  If a party fails to offer a reasonable settlement offer in response to a Chapter 93A claim, the court can (and most likely will) punish them for this.

For this reason, a landlord who receives a Chapter 93A demand letter needs to properly address it.  Failure to do so can lead to much greater problems later on if the matter winds up in court.

Conclusion

If you need assistance with a Chapter 93A matter, contact me for a consultation.

17P1611

Getting Possession of a Rental Unit

Getting possession of a rental unit is the primary goal of an eviction case.  A successful eviction case allows a landlord to legally remove the tenant and their possessions from the rental unit.  The formal court order that allows the landlord to do so is known as an execution, and the process of using this court order for getting possession of a rental unit is commonly referred to as levying the execution.

Evictions 101

Eviction (known in Massachusetts as “summary process” cases) is the required, legal proceeding for obtaining possession of property.  Massachusetts (like nearly all states) is a judicial eviction state: one must bring a formal court proceeding to remove a tenant.  Attempting to remove a tenant without a court order, commonly known as a “self help” eviction, is a serious offense.

If the landlord wins the eviction case, or reaches an agreement for the tenant to move, the court will issue an execution for possession.  This is the court order that permits a landlord to physically remove a tenant and their possessions from the rental unit.

Levying the Execution 

 The actual process of getting possession of a rental unit is commonly known as levying the execution.  The tenant must be given 48 hours notice prior to the move out, and service of this notice must be made by a constable or sheriff.  Levying an execution requires the landlord to pay for the moving and storage expenses.  Needless to say, these expenses can add up.

Stay of Execution

A tenant is permitted to request a stay of execution if they believe they need more time to find a new place to live.  The law is written to apply only for tenants involved in a “no-fault” eviction case, where the tenant is not behind on their rent or in violation of a term of their tenancy.  Courts, however, commonly consider stays of execution for all types of tenancies, on the theory that courts have inherent power to manage the eviction process.

Conclusion

Getting possession of a rental unit is not an easy process, and if done incorrectly, can result in enormous costs and expenses that could otherwise be avoided.  For this reason, speak to an experienced landlord-tenant attorney for assistance with such a matter.

Housing Discrimination in Massachusetts: A “Ruff” Lesson On This Important Area of Law

A recent case from Western Massachusetts of a landlord refusing to rent to tenants with service animals is an example of the perils of ignoring state and federal housing discrimination laws, and a reason why landlords need to be extremely careful when advertising rental units.  Discriminating against tenants with service animals will put landlords in the doghouse (pun intended!).

Housing Discrimination 101

Both state and federal law prohibits discrimination in housing.  This includes, but is not limited to: race, national origin, sex, and disability status.  The list of these protected categories is long, and it is best to check on this by reviewing the state and federal government websites on fair housing laws, which do a good job of explaining the basics about housing discrimination.  Simply put, a landlord is not allowed to deny a tenant housing based on one of these protected categories.

In this case, the landlord advertised that it would not accept pets or service animals.  While a restriction on pets is generally okay (and common) for rental units, the latter is a big no-no: a blanket restriction on service animals is discrimination on the basis of disability.

Practical Implications

Although the landlord in this story was likely fine in not allowing tenants with pets, it was not lawful to outright prohibit service animals.  If a tenant with a service animal wished to apply for a rental unit, the landlord would have to consider them for a reasonable accommodation.  If the landlord fails to properly consider this request, this is housing discrimination.

The increased use of service dogs promises that this will be an issue for years to come.  While every situation is different, I would imagine that most landlords will have difficulty making a case that a service dog is not a reasonable accommodation.  Landlords who fail to take this issue seriously set themselves up for severe damages and penalties.

In this case, the penalty against the landlord was likely not as bad as it could have been.  It is not unheard of for housing discrimination cases in Massachusetts to result in steep damages for landlords.

Conclusion 

If you need assistance with a housing discrimination matter, contact me for a consultation.

Help for Landlords With Bad Tenants in Massachusetts

Landlords with bad tenants are often in need of immediate resolutions to their problems.  While a landlord must bring an eviction case against a tenant to get a tenant out of a rental unit, a landlord has other options for dealing with a bad tenant prior to the conclusion of an eviction case.  A “bad tenant” is one I define as someone who is (a) not paying rent or (2) damaging the rental premise.

Rent Escrow

One of the most common reasons for evicting a tenant is non-payment of rent.  Although an eviction case is intended to proceed quickly, many times, the final resolution of these cases can be delayed due to the trial court’s schedule or a tenant’s request for a jury trial.

In such a scenario, where the trial date is not imminent, a landlord can (and should) request that the court order the tenant to escrow rent as the court case proceeds.  The rationale is straightforward: if the tenant is living at the rental unit, it is reasonable for them to pay something as the eviction case proceeds.

The law on rent escrow is divided, and requires a convincing argument to obtain this relief.  Simply arguing for a rent escrow, without citing the proper authority, will likely not be enough to convince a court on this point.

Injunctive Relief 

Another important tool for landlords with bad tenants is seeking injunctive relief.  Injunctive relief is a court order requiring or preventing a party from doing something.  For example, if a tenant is purposely damaging a rental unit, a landlord is permitted to ask for an injunction prohibiting the tenant from doing so.  A tenant who disregards such a court order can be subject to contempt of court and other harsh penalties.

No Self-Help

An important reminder for landlords with bad tenants.  A landlord cannot, under any circumstances, use “self-help” methods to evict or punish a tenant.  Changing an apartment’s locks or shutting off the utilities is highly illegal in Massachusetts and can result not only in large penalties from the court, but criminal punishment as well.

Don’t take this chance!  Contact an experienced landlord/tenant attorney when dealing with bad tenants.

Service of an Eviction Case

reversing-a-foreclosure

Service of an eviction case is a requirement for starting any eviction against a tenant.  The law requires that the tenants have proper notice that such a case has been brought against them.  A landlord’s failure to comply with these service requirements can be fatal to one’s case.

Service of an Eviction Case

An eviction generally requires serving two types of documents to a tenant: a notice to quit, informing the tenant that their tenancy is being terminated, and a summons,  informing the tenant that an eviction case is occurring in court against them.

Service of an eviction is needed to put a tenant on fair notice that the landlord is attempting to obtain possession of the rental unit.  Simply calling or emailing the tenant is not sufficient; the law requires (like any other lawsuit) that the tenant have formal notice of the eviction.

Contrary to popular belief, a landlord does not need to serve a notice to quit by constable or sheriff.  However, the landlord bears the burden of proving that the tenant received this notice.  If the landlord is unable to do so, the court will dismiss the eviction.  For this reason, most landlords (smartly) serve notices to quit through a constable or sheriff.  Under the law, such service creates a presumption that the tenant received the notice.  Absent a compelling argument to the contrary, proof of service by a constable or sheriff establishes that the tenant received the notice to quit.

A summons, which is a formal court notice stating that an eviction case will begin, must be served by a sheriff.  A constable, who is a private officer, is also permitted to serve most eviction cases.  This formal service is a mandatory requirement, unless the tenant elects to waiver service.  Failure to properly serve an eviction case will likely result in its immediate dismissal by the court.

Conclusion

Service of an eviction is a critical part of a Massachusetts landlord-tenant case.  Failure to comply with these requirements can add unnecessary time and expense onto one of these cases, and make the process far more difficult than it needs to be.  For this reason, consider hiring an experienced landlord-tenant attorney to assist with one of these matters.

 

Who Can File An Eviction in Massachusetts?

foreclosure appeal

The Supreme Judicial Court issued an important decision this week for landlord-tenant law: who can file an eviction in Massachusetts?  The decision, Rental Property Management Services v. Hatcher, is included below.

Overview

The facts of this case are fairly straightforward.  A property manager (a person hired to maintain rental property) filed an eviction (“summary process”) case against a tenant in Housing Court.  This property manager brought this case in the name of “Property Management Services” (his business), which was not the owner of the subject property, nor the lessor.  This property manager personally signed the eviction summons.

Who Can File An Eviction in Massachusetts?

This case presented two main questions for the Supreme Judicial Court.  First, could this property management service bring this eviction case against the tenant?  Second, could the property manager (who was not a lawyer) sign the eviction summons?

The Court held that only an owner or lessor of rental property is entitled to bring an eviction case against a tenant.  Here, while the property management company may have been responsible for maintaining the property, it was not the right party to bring this eviction.

It is not uncommon in Massachusetts for property management companies to directly enter into leases with tenants.  Here, if this property management company had a lease or written agreement with the tenant, I suspect the outcome may have been different.  However, where this company was neither the owner nor lessor, it was not entitled to proceed with this eviction.

The Court then addressed whether the property manager was permitted to sign the eviction paperwork.  Because this manager was not an attorney, the Court held that he was not permitted to do so, and had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

Lessons for Massachusetts Landlords

This case has an important lesson for Massachusetts landlords: proceed with caution when filing an eviction in Massachusetts.  While I highly recommend that landlords use property management services if they need assistance in maintaining their rental units, these services cannot substitute as lawyers.

The Court declined to find that doing so was an unfair and deceptive business practice against the tenant (a claim that could allow for monetary damages and attorney fees).  Hatcher is clear, however, that a Court can punish a party who knowingly disobeys these eviction requirements.

Conclusion

If you are confused about who can file an eviction in Massachusetts, take away this critical advice: hire an experienced landlord-tenant attorney for your eviction.  Aside from avoiding some of the problems stated above, an experienced attorney will help you navigate this tricky area of law and reach an effective resolution to your dispute.  If you are in need of such assistance, contact me for a consultation.

12373

Landlord Not Returning a Security Deposit in Massachusetts

reversing-a-foreclosure

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. 186 Section 15B 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.

Conclusion 

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.

Conclusion 

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.