Your Right to a Decent Place to Live
Notas finales
All tenants have a right to a decent, safe, and sanitary place to live. In Massachusetts, there are primarily 4 sources of law that give tenants this right:
The state Sanitary Code is a regulation that applies to the whole state. It has two chapters: Chapter I: General Administrative Procedures, and Chapter II: Minimum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health, the state agency which is responsible for enforcing the state Sanitary Code, may from time to time change or amend these regulations. Chapter I is printed in 105 C.M.R. §400.000; Chapter II is printed in 105 C.M.R. §410.000.
See Building Code (780 C.M.R.), Mass. Comprehensive Fire Safety Code (527 C.M.R. §1.00), Electrical Code (527 C.M.R. §12.00), Plumbing Code (248 C.M.R.), Lead Poisoning Prevention and Control (105 C.M.R. §460.000), and cross metering of utilities (220 C.M.R. 29.00). All of these codes are available for purchase from the State House Bookstore and searchable online by regulation number at: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/bookstore/numerical.htm#100
Some cities/towns with local laws are: Boston, Chelsea, Malden, Milton, Newton, Scituate, and Weymouth. To find out if your city or town has a local law you can (1) call the Board of Health or (2) check the city/town's website (under the clerk's office or the board of health).
See Coder v. Lauer, Gloucester District Court, 870236 (D'Avolio, J.)(1987), where court found that a rental agreement made without the benefit of a certificate of occupancy was illegal. The landlord was precluded from recovering rent which had been withheld by the tenant. However, in general, where an apartment is “illegal” the court will look at the factors described in Town Planning and Engineering Associates, Inc. v. Amesbury Specialty Co., Inc., 369 Mass. 737 (1976) and Hastings Associates Inc. v. Local 369 Building Fund, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 162 (1997) to determine if all or part of the rent must be returned. See, e.g, Camp v. Guilbert, Hampden Housing Court, No. 90-CV-0146 (Abrashkin, J. Nov. 12, 1991).
Boston Housing Auth. v. Hemingway, 363 Mass. 184, 199 (1973); G.L. c. 111, §127K; See also Crowell v. McCaffrey, 377 Mass. 443 (1979).
See endnote 8. This may also be a violation of G.L. c. 93A (the Consumer Protection Law).
Haddad v. Gonzalez, 410 Mass. 855 (1991)[cannot nullify the warranty of habitability by giving a discount in rent]; McKenna v. Begin, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 168, 170-171 (1975).
105 C.M.R. §410.630 sets out the conditions that may endanger or impair the health, safety, or well-being of tenants. Any violation not included in this list has the potential to fall within this category, given the specific conditions.
Boston Housing Auth. v. Hemingway, 363 Mass. 184, 200-01 (1973). If a tenant goes to court, a judge will use several factors to decide whether the lease should be rescinded. These factors include: (1) the seriousness of the defective conditions and the effect on the habitability of the residence; (2) how long a tenant has had to live with the defective conditions; (3) whether or not the defects could be fixed within a reasonable amount of time; and (4) whether or not the tenant is responsible for the defective conditions.
Cruz Mgmt. Co. v. Wideman, 417 Mass. 771, 775 (1994); Darmetko v. Boston Housing Auth., 378 Mass. 758 (1979); McKenna v. Begin, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 304 (1977). The damages are the difference between the “value of the premises as warranted” and the value of the premises in their actual (defective) condition. Specifically, a judge determines what major code violations there are in your apartment (and associated common areas), the time period each violation existed, and the percentage by which your use and enjoyment of the apartment has been diminished by the existence of these violations. The court then calculates the amount the landlord owes you applying this percentage to the value as warranted for each month in which each serious condition existed (after notice to the landlord) and totaling those amounts. See McKenna v. Begin, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 304 (1977). The value as warranted is generally the “agreed upon rent” but could be higher. McKenna v. Begin (I), 3 Mass. App. Ct. 168 (1975); Haddad v. Gonzalez, 410 Mass. 855 (1991). Tenants with subsidies are entitled to damages calculated on the basis of the full contract rent, not just the tenant's portion of the rent. Cruz Mgmt. Co. v. Wideman, 417 Mass. 771, 774-775 (1994). The damages for the breach of the implied warranty of habitability may be doubled or trebled under the Consumer Protection statute (G.L. c. 93A) depending on the circumstances.
G.L. c. 186, §14; Charles E. Burt, Inc. v. Seven Grand Corp., 340 Mass. 124 (1959); Homesavers Council of Greenfield Gardens, Inc. v. Sanchez, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 453 (2007) (providing that actual and consequential damages can include emotional distress). In order for you to recover under G.L. c. 186, §14, the landlord does not have to intentionally try to disturb you; it is their conduct and not their intentions that are controlling. Blackett v. Olanoff, 371 Mass. 714 (1977). For example, the fact that an owner failed to provide heat because they could not afford to buy heating oil does not diminish the tenant's right to recover for the loss of "quiet enjoyment" that occurred during the time the apartment was unheated. Lowery v. Robinson, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 982 (1982). The rent for tenants with subsidies is the full contract rent and not the tenant’s portion of the rent. Simon v. Solomon, 385 Mass. 91, 111, n. 13 (1982).