Imprimir

Important Legal Defenses and Counterclaims

También en
English

Notas finales

Legal Tactics
Por
Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School
Reviewed
Revisado
Text

In an eviction case, you get to respond to what your landlord tells the court. You respond through a court document called an Answer. The Answer tells the court your side of the story and includes defenses and counterclaims.

Widgets
What is the difference between a defense and counterclaim?
  • Defenses are legal reasons why you should not be evicted. If you have a defense, you may be able to prevent your eviction. For example, if your landlord says that you damaged property but you didn’t, you get to tell the court that and may be able to stop the eviction.
  • Counterclaims are legal claims against the landlord for money. You can also use counterclaims to ask the court to order the landlord to follow the law. For example, if your landlord refused to fix bad conditions after you notified them, you may claim the landlord owes you money because of bad conditions. And you may ask the court to order your landlord to fix the conditions.
    Counterclaims are important because you can use them to reduce the amount of money you owe your landlord. If the amount you win through a counterclaim is more than the amount you owe, then you will not be evicted in a non-payment or no-fault eviction case. In some cases, if you win a counterclaim and pay the difference between what your landlord owes you and you owe the landlord, you can also prevent your eviction.123

Sometimes, defenses and counterclaims will overlap. For example, discrimination is a defense to eviction in all cases, including evictions for cause. Discrimination can also be a counterclaim worth money in a non-payment or no-fault case. See the chart at the end of this chapter, Most Common Defenses and Counterclaims for Tenants.

There are separate rules that apply to eviction cases following foreclosures. If your landlord owns the property as the result of a foreclosure, see Chapter 18: Tenants and Foreclosure.

Defenses that Can Prevent Eviction

The following are common defenses you may have against eviction.

a. Tenancy Not Properly Terminated

Your landlord must prove that they properly terminated your tenancy.124 You have a defense to the eviction if:

  • You never received a Notice to Quit
  • You received a defective Notice to Quit. (For example, the notice does not give you the right amount of time.)
  • You received a Notice to Quit for nonpayment of rent, but you did not receive it with a required form called “Form to Accompany Residential Notice to Quit” about your rights, including how to get rental assistance.
  • After sending you a Notice to Quit, your landlord accepted rent without notifying you right away that it is "for use and occupancy only."
  • You received a 14-day Notice to Quit for non-payment of rent at a time when you were not behind on your rent.
  • You received a 14-day Notice to Quit for non-payment of rent for refusing to pay the amount of a rent increase (that you did not agree to pay).125
  • You live in a federally subsidized property covered by the federal CARES Act and did not receive a 30-day Notice to Quit. 
  • You paid or offered to pay the landlord the rent you owed within the time allowed by law.
  • You are facing a non-payment case and fell behind on your rent due to financial hardship and have a pending application for rental assistance.126
  • You have received 1 Notice to Quit and then your landlord issues you another, but tries to evict you based on the first notice. 

If any one of these situations applies to you, you should ask a judge to dismiss your case. For more information, see the section in this chapter on Motion to Dismiss. Make sure you bring all important documents to court to prove your claims, such as the invalid Notice to Quit and rent receipts or canceled checks to prove you paid your rent. If you are successful in having the case dismissed, the landlord must send you a new Notice to Quit if they still want you out.

b. Case Not Properly Brought 

Your landlord must show that they have properly filed the eviction case in court. If any of the following is true, you have a defense to the eviction.

  • Your landlord did not properly serve you a summons and complaint.
  • Your landlord began the court case before the time period on your Notice to Quit expired.
  • The complaint does not state the reasons for eviction.128
  • The complaint and Notice to Quit state different reasons for eviction.
  • The landlord is a corporation or other business entity, and this case was not brought by an attorney so it should be dismissed. The case was brought in the name of the property manager instead of the property owner or landlord.129
  • Your landlord doesn’t have the right to evict you because they bought the property after the prior owner started the case against you and the new owner did not receive an assignment of the right to continue the case.130
  • Your landlord does not have a superior right to possession.

c. Landlord failed to comply with rules for public and subsidized housing

If you are a tenant in public or subsidized housing you may have a defense if:

  • The landlord did not terminate the tenancy as required by the lease or program rules.
  • You are a Section 8 tenant and the landlord did not give you the agency overseeing the subsidy a Notice to Quit in a timely manner.
  • The landlord does not have “good cause” to evict you under the lease or program rules. 
  • The landlord did not give you a grievance hearing or informal conference as required by the lease or program rules.
  • You live in federally subsidized housing and you have a defense under the Violence Against Women Act.
  • You live in state public housing and have been a victim of abuse and the abuser is no longer in the unit.

d. Case should be continued for determination of available rental assistance

If a case is brought for non-payment of rent and the non-payment of rent was due to a financial hardship, the court events relating to the landlord’s case should be postponed for a determination of all available rental assistance for which you have applied or will apply.131 Upon approval of rental assistance and payment of the full rent then due, the landlord’s claims for rent and possession should be dismissed.

e. You are not responsible for alleged behavior

If you are being evicted because the landlord said that you, a household member, or a guest did something illegal or violated your lease, you may have a defense to an eviction if you can show any of the following:

  • You, a household member, or guest did not do what the landlord alleges.
  • What the landlord is claiming is not a violation of your lease or rental agreement. 
  • You are a tenant in state public housing and the landlord is evicting you for the alleged behavior of a household member or guest or someone over whom you had no control.
  • You are a tenant of federally-subsidized housing and the landlord is evicting you for something that is a direct result of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
  • Your landlord gave up (waived) their right to object to your breach because they consented to it132 and did not expressly reserve the right to proceed with the eviction.133 It is best to get this consent in writing, because verbal consent is hard to prove and sometimes not admissible in court.134
  • Your landlord gave up (waived) their right to object to your breach because they accepted the rent after sending you a Notice to Quit without reserving their rights (which means they accepted your rent without notifying you that the money was "for use and occupancy only").135

Note

The acceptance of rent by the landlord does not always act as a permanent waiver.136

  • The violations occurred prior to the renewal or during the term of the previous lease.137
  • A new owner is trying to evict you for a breach that occurred before they acquired the property.138
  • Even though you may have technically violated a term of your lease, your violation was accidental, a mistake, or a very minor violation; you have corrected the violation; and the landlord was not substantially harmed or your violation was related to a disability for which you have requested a reasonable accommodation.139

f. Fairness

Courts can determine that even if an eviction is technically allowed, the eviction is unfair based on principles of equity and fairness (this is called the “doctrine of prevention of forfeiture”).140

If you live in Boston, Somerville, or Cambridge and you did not receive a notice of resources and tenants’ rights, as required by local ordinances, you may also assert this as a potential defense against eviction because if you had received the notice you would have tried to get rental assistance or other help.

Defenses and Counterclaims that Can Prevent Eviction

Sometimes defenses and counterclaims will overlap. If you bring a claim that is both a defense and a counterclaim the judge will decide whether you have proven your claim. If you are able to prove your claim, a judge will then decide how much money to award you based on each of your counterclaims. You may be able to use this money to pay the landlord what a court determines you owe and prevent the eviction. If you have a claim against your landlord and you do not bring it as a counterclaim in an eviction case, you still have the right to file a separate lawsuit on that claim.141

a. When can you bring counterclaims in eviction cases?

In non-payment of rent cases:

If you are being evicted for non-payment of rent, counterclaims may reduce or eliminate the amount of rent you owe. A judge will compare the amount they award you on your counterclaims to the amount they award your landlord for rent. If you are awarded more money than your landlord, you win the eviction case and get to stay in your apartment.

If the amount you win on your counterclaim is less than what the judge says you owe the landlord, you have 7 days after receiving notice from the court to pay the difference to the court (plus interest and court costs) and prevent the eviction.142 If your counterclaim is related to poor living conditions that your landlord didn’t fix you have to prove four things in order to be able to pay the difference and stay in your apartment. You have to prove that your landlord had notice of problem before you stopped paying rent, that you didn’t cause the problem that you don’t live in a motel, hotel or a rooming house you’ve stayed in for less than three consecutive months and your landlord did not show that the problems can be fixed without you leaving the apartment (the exception being when you need to leave for lead paint abatement).143

In no-fault cases (evictions for no reason):

If you are being evicted for a reason that is not your fault, such as if your lease expired or your landlord wants to rent your apartment to their sister, counterclaims may be used to prevent an eviction.144

In fault evictions:

If you are being evicted for a reason that the landlord claims is your fault145 (other than non-payment of rent), such as destruction of property or disturbing neighbors, you cannot use counterclaims to prevent the eviction. You may, however, still have defenses you can use to prevent the eviction. Simply staying in your home after the end of a lease term is not a “fault” basis for eviction.146

If your landlord brings a claim for rent you owe in addition to the cause-based reason for eviction, you can bring counterclaims for the limited purpose of offsetting the landlord’s claim. You can also use your counterclaims to get money damages if you file a separate case.147

b. Common Counterclaims and Defenses:

The following are common claims that can be both defenses against eviction and counterclaims against your landlord for money damages. 

c. Retaliation

Retaliation as a defense

If your landlord tries to evict you in retaliation for your engaging in certain activities protected by law, you have a defense to an eviction. These protected activities are listed in the section in this chapter called Retaliatory Evictions.

If a landlord sends you a Notice to Quit or tries to evict you by going to court within 6 months after you did any of the activities protected by the law, a judge must "presume" that your landlord is retaliating. If you raise retaliation as a defense in an eviction, your landlord must prove "by clear and convincing evidence" that the eviction is based on a reason other than your engaging in legally protected activities and that they would have brought the eviction in the same manner and at the same time if you hadn't engaged in those activities.148

Retaliation as a counterclaim

Retaliation may also be raised as a counterclaim and you may be entitled to damages. For example, if you prove that your landlord threatened to take legal action against you for enforcing your rights, you may be able to prevent your eviction and be awarded damages. This does not apply in non-payment cases.

d. Discrimination

Discrimination as a defense

If you have been discriminated against, violation of the discrimination laws is a defense to an eviction, even if you are being evicted for a reason that the landlord says is your fault.149

Discrimination defenses include:

  • You were discriminated against based on your race, disability, sexual orientation, receipt of public or rental assistance or other protected class. See Chapter 7: Discrimination.
  • It is illegal discrimination for a landlord to refuse to accept any federal or state rent subsidy and then evict you for non-payment of rent.150
  • You have a disability and your landlord failed to provide a reasonable accommodation that would allow a person to remain in their home despite their disability.151 For example, you may be able to use the theory of reasonable accommodation to prevent a landlord from evicting a tenant with a mental disability who was causing minor damage to their apartment because they hear voices.152 You also may be able to prevent the eviction of a disabled tenant by allowing that person to keep a service or therapy animal even though pets are prohibited under the lease.153
  • You faced sexual harassment by your landlord or an employee of the landlord including unsolicited harassment of a sexual nature or being pressured to give sexual favors.

Discrimination as a counterclaim

You may be entitled to damages under the discrimination counterclaim statute if you prove that your landlord threatened to take legal action against you for enforcing your rights.

e. Defenses Related to Gender-Based violence

If you are being evicted for reasons related to experiencing intimate partner violence, family violence, violence by a person you live with, sexual assault, or stalking, you may have defenses to the eviction, depending on what type of housing you live in.

In federally subsidized housing (such as public housing, project-based Section 8, the Housing Choice Voucher Program),154 the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) protects survivors of abuse155 from eviction for reasons that are a direct result of abuse156 and prohibits eviction for criminal activity if that activity is related to abuse.157

Tenants in federally subsidized housing are entitled to get a Notice of Occupancy Rights under VAWA with any eviction.158 That notice contains important information about your rights under VAWA and a self-certification form that you can use to show your landlord that you are eligible for VAWA protection (you can also provide a restraining order, police report, or a letter from a third party verifying your eligibility for protection).159 It is up to you to decide which is the safest form of documentation you provide and the housing provider cannot require you to get a restraining order or a police report.160 Your landlord is expected to do everything feasible and allowed under the housing program rules to help you keep your housing.161

If your landlord doesn’t stop the eviction after receiving this information, tell the judge (if it is safe to do so). The judge is obligated to find out if your experience of abuse is related to the reason for eviction and if so, deny the landlord’s request to evict you.162 It is never too late to bring up a request for protection under VAWA and there is no limit to the number of times you can ask for protection under VAWA.163

If you live in state subsidized housing, state rules say that if you are a documented victim of abuse164 and you remove the abuser from the home, the housing authority is not allowed to evict you based on the conduct of your abuser.165 The housing authority should do what it can to help you keep your housing.166

If you live in private market housing, there are currently no state laws that specifically prohibit the landlord from evicting you based on your experience of gender-based violence. However, there is a protection against being evicted for calling emergency services for help during an incident of abuse, getting a restraining order against your abuser, or reporting violations of the restraining order.167 See Retaliation above.

f. Bad Conditions

Under Massachusetts law, all landlords owe tenants what is called a warranty of habitability. This means that your landlord must provide you with a safe and habitable living environment that is free from any violations of the State Sanitary Code. If your landlord does not keep your apartment in good condition, for example if your apartment has inadequate heat or rodent infestation, they have broken or “breached” the Warranty of Habitability.168

Bad conditions as a defense

When your landlord knows about conditions that violate the state Sanitary Code prior to you falling behind on your rent and allows these conditions to remain uncorrected, you may have a defense that can prevent your eviction in a non-payment or no-fault eviction case.169 This defense can be used by:

  1. Tenants who are being evicted for non-payment of rent.
  2. Tenants who are being evicted for a reason that is not the tenant's fault, often referred to as a no-fault eviction. A no-fault eviction would be, for example, if you refuse to pay a rent increase or if your landlord wants the apartment for a family member.
  3. All "occupants" of residential property, except people who have been living in a hotel, motel, or lodging or rooming house for less than 3 consecutive months.170

If you are being evicted for a reason that the landlord claims is your fault, such as disturbing other tenants or destroying property, you may not be able to use bad conditions as a defense to prevent an eviction. In this situation, if your landlord wants to prevent you from raising bad conditions as a defense, they must send you a Notice to Quit that specifies the reasons for the eviction.171 A judge may still allow you to bring up conditions-based claims against your landlord (to offset any money damages your landlord claims against you), but your claims would not provide a defense to the eviction case.172

If your defense is based on bad conditions, a judge must be convinced of the following things:

  • Bad conditions existed.
  • Your landlord knew about the bad conditions before you were behind in your rent.
  • Neither you nor anyone else under your control caused the bad conditions.
  • You do not live in a hotel or a motel or hotel or you have lived in a rooming house for more than 3 months.
  • The conditions can be repaired without you moving out.173
  1. Bad conditions existed. The best way to prove that the bad conditions exist or existed, and that the landlord has violated the state Sanitary Code, is with a certified inspection report from the Board of Health.175 A certified inspection report is one signed under the pains and penalties of perjury.175

    If you have photographs or video of the conditions, show them to the judge. It is also important for you to testify about the harm that these conditions caused you and your family. In addition to describing the conditions in detail, explain how long these existed and when and how you told your landlord about the issue(s). Talk about how the conditions impacted your use of your home, your mental and physical health, and whether you spent any of your own money to manage the situation. Make a diagram of your apartment and use it to show the judge where bad conditions existed and indicate how long these problems have gone on. Keep in mind that the judge has not seen or lived in your apartment and does not know how bad things are or how they affected you.
  2. Your landlord knew about the bad conditions before you were behind in your rent. If you are being evicted for non-payment, you will need to prove that your landlord knew about the bad conditions before you fell behind or began to withhold your rent.176 Your best proof will be a copy of any written letters you sent to the landlord telling them about the bad conditions or a report from the Board of Health dated before you stopped paying rent. You can also try through the process of discovery to get information or documents showing that your landlord knew about the bad conditions. You can testify about conversations with your landlord in which you discussed the violations; and witnesses who overheard these conversations can testify that your landlord had notice of the bad conditions.

    If the bad conditions existed at the time you moved into your apartment, the law presumes that your landlord knew about them, even if the landlord did not actually know of these conditions.177 For more information see Chapter 8: Getting Repairs Made - Establishing That Your Landlord Had Knowledge of Illegal Conditions.
  3. Neither you nor anyone else under your control caused the bad conditions. Your landlord must prove that you or someone in your household caused the defective conditions. If your landlord took a security deposit when you moved in, you should have a statement of conditions. If the defective condition is listed on this statement, that will be proof that you did not cause it.
  4. You do not live in a hotel or a motel nor have you lived in a rooming house for more than 3 months. If you live in a hotel or motel or you have lived in a rooming house for fewer than 3 months, you cannot use the fact that there are bad conditions to prevent an eviction.
  5. The conditions can be repaired without you moving out.178 If the landlord claims the conditions cannot be repaired without your moving out, you can argue that you should be able to move back in after the repairs are made.

Bad conditions as a counterclaim

If a judge is persuaded that all of these conditions have been met and you may also have a counterclaim that the value of your apartment has decreased and is not worth all of the rent that your landlord is charging you or that you have paid in the past.179 180 A judge will determine what the fair rental value of the apartment is in its defective condition and calculate how much rent is owed for the period of time you lived with the bad conditions. The judge may then order you to pay some or all of the rent you have not paid. If you do owe money and you pay within 7 days the amount the judge says you owe, you cannot be evicted. If you proved your claim of bad conditions and don't owe the landlord any money, you cannot be evicted and you may be entitled to money damages from your landlord. Of course, if you do owe money and don’t pay it within 7 days, you can be evicted. For more information about rent withholding, see Chapter 8: Getting Repairs Made.

Withholding Rent. If you have been withholding rent because of serious Sanitary Code violations in your apartment, you can wait until after a judge holds an eviction trial, evaluates the conditions, and determines how much of the rent you actually owe before you “cure” the non-payment and pay what you owe.

g. Security Deposit Law

If your landlord takes a security deposit, the law says that they have certain obligations. If they fail to follow the law, you may have a defense to a non-payment or no-fault eviction. You may also be able to use this as a counterclaim to pay the amount you may owe to prevent the eviction.

Security deposit law as a defense

Under security deposit law, you have a defense to eviction if your landlord failed to provide you with a written receipt, give you a statement that describes the condition of your apartment, hold your money in a bank account that is separate from the landlord's money, pay you interest every year, keep records of deposits and repairs, and return your security deposit to you within 30 days of the end of your tenancy.181 Some violations of this law entitle tenants to three times the value of the security deposit, or payment of back interest owed. See Chapter 3: Security Deposits and Last Month’s Rent. If you win a security deposit claim in a non-payment case, but you still owe your landlord rent on top of what the landlord owes you, the court will give you a chance to pay the difference in 7 days to keep your apartment

Security deposit law as a counterclaim

If your landlord has violated security deposit law, you may be entitled to 3 times the security deposit and interest owed and/or actual damages.182

h. Last Month’s Rent

If you paid last month’s rent when you moved in, your landlord has certain obligations. Similar to security deposit law, Massachusetts law provides a defense to a non-payment or no-fault eviction and a counterclaim for money where your landlord violates this law.183 See Chapter 3: Security Deposits and Last Month’s Rent.

Last month’s rent as a defense

Under Massachusetts law, you have a defense to eviction in summary process if your landlord failed to provide you with a receipt or pay you yearly interest on your last month’s rent.

Last month’s rent as a counterclaim

If your landlord has violated the law, you may be entitled to three times the interest owed and/or actual damages.184

i. Interference with Utilities or Use of Home (Interference with Quiet Enjoyment)

In Massachusetts, if your landlord interferes with your use and enjoyment of your apartment or with your utilities, they have violated the law. 
This is called an “Interference with Quiet Enjoyment” and you may raise this defense and counterclaim in a non-payment or no-fault eviction in the following situations:

  • Your landlord did not provide adequate heat or hot water.
  • Your landlord did not pay for utilities that were the landlord’s responsibility.
  • Your landlord transferred the responsibility for payment for the utility to you without your consent,
  • Your landlord required you to pay utilities that go to common areas or areas you do not occupy.185
  • Your landlord locked you out of your home.
  • Your landlord attempted to move your possessions out without first taking you to court and getting a court order.186
  • Your landlord entered your home without your permission or notice.
  • Your landlord allowed bad conditions to exist in your home.
  • Your landlord interfered with your right to "quiet enjoyment" of your apartment in other ways.187
  • You have been billed for gas, oil, and/or electricity that goes to other people’s apartments or common areas (such as hallways, stairways, basements, or porches). Note: this is true even if your landlord reimburses you for improperly charging you for utilities.188

Interference with Utilities or Use of Home as a Defense

If you can prove that the landlord has interfered with your utilities or your right to “quiet enjoyment" of the apartment, you may be able to prevent eviction.189

Interference with Utilities or Use of Home as a Counterclaim 

You may sue for money damages if you can prove that your landlord interfered with the use of your apartment. These money damages can help offset or pay the amount of rent you owe to prevent an eviction. If you can show that your landlord breached your right to quiet enjoyment, you can win either 3 month’s rent or actual damages, whichever is greater, plus attorney’s fees and costs.190 Actual damages could include things like a discount in the amount of rent that you owe based on living with bad conditions in your home, emotional distress as a result of the landlord’s conduct, or out of pocket expenses.191

j. Rent Liability in Public and Subsidized Housing

If you live in public or subsidized housing you may have a defense and/or counterclaim for the issues involving rent including:

  • The housing authority is responsible for paying the rent.
  • The housing authority stopped payments to the landlord because the landlord did not make repairs.
  • The housing authority or owner failed to properly calculate or adjust the rent and you are entitled to have your rent recalculated.
  • The landlord charged you more rent than the amount approved by the housing agency.

k. Violation of Consumer Protection Law

The Massachusetts legislature has recognized that tenants are consumers of one of the most significant consumer products—housing.192 Under the state Consumer Protection Act, it is illegal for a landlord to threaten, attempt, or actually use any unfair or deceptive acts against you or anyone in your house.193

If your landlord is covered by the Consumer Protection Act and is not a housing authority, non-profit, or the owner-occupant of a 2- or 3-family property,194 you may have a defense and counterclaim to a non-payment or no-fault eviction.195

Consumer Protection Law as a Defense

  • If you are facing eviction for non-payment or no-fault and you can prove that the landlord acted in a way that was unfair or deceptive and that you suffered injury or loss, the court should not allow the landlord to evict you. Some examples of unfair or deceptive acts are outlined in the Attorney General’s regulations that cover landlord-tenant relationships:196
  • The landlord charged you late fees before your rent was 30 days late.
  • The landlord charged a rent amount that you never agreed to.
  • The landlord charged you with a constable or court fee unlawfully.
  • There are unlawful terms in your lease.197
  • The landlord failed to fix conditions of disrepair in your home after you gave them notice of the problems.198
  • The landlord failed to maintain the apartment up to the minimum standards in the health code.
  • The landlord failed to comply with the security deposit statute.

Consumer Protection Law as a Counterclaim

  • If there is a violation of the Consumer Protection Law, tenants are entitled to actual damages suffered as a result of the landlord’s conduct as well as attorney’s fees and costs. If the landlord’s conduct was willful and knowing, a court may double and triple the damages.199

l. Personal Injury Claims and Lead Paint Poisoning

If you have been injured due to your landlord's negligence or your child has been poisoned by lead paint, you can bring a counterclaim for your injuries. These legal claims, however, can be complicated and may involve substantial amounts of money. It is best to speak to a lawyer about bringing one of these claims. You may be better off bringing the claim as a separate lawsuit against your landlord as opposed to a counterclaim. If you bring these claims as counterclaims, you will not be able to sue your landlord for these claims later. For example, if your child has been exposed to lead, you may not know how badly they have been hurt until many years after the exposure and so you would most likely not want to bring a claim at the time of your eviction case.

Expandir todo
Endnotes
Notas finales
1:

 

123. G.L. c. 239, §8A.

124. Your landlord must file their Notice to Quit with the summons and complaint. U.S.P.R. 2(d).

125. Williams v. Seder, 306 Mass. 134, 137 (1940).

126. G.L. c. 239 § 15 (while this is not a full defense to the case, the court should not enter judgment against you or issue an execution until your rental assistance application has been approved or denied.) See Grant Manor LP v. Beasley, Eastern Housing Court, No. 23-H84-SP-4787 (Kelleher, F.J. Feb. 8, 2024); Martin v. Sprague, Central Housing Court, No. 24-H85-SP-491 (Central Housing Court March 29, 2024). But note that where prior applications had been denied, at least one court has held that a judge can determine whether to grant a stay based on the likelihood that the tenancy will be preserved through rental assistance. Corcoran Mgt. Co v. Sharifnoor, Eastern Housing Court, No. 23-H84-SP-4230 (Bagdoian, J. Feb. 9, 2024). Another judge denied a stay where rental assistance would not cover the tenant’s entire balance. Beacon Residential Mgt. v. Mateo, Western Housing Court, No. 24-H79-SP-577 (Adeyinka, J. April 29, 2024).

127. Bedford Village Preservation Associates, v. Pilat, Northeast Housing Court, No. 20-H77-SP-1316 (Mitchell-Munevar, J. Aug. 8, 2022); Martin v. Ventura, Central Housing Court, No. 23-H85-SP-2552 (Mitchell-Munevar, J. Aug. 10, 2023). 

128. U.S.P.R. 2(d) commentary. Although tenants at will can be evicted for no cause, the complaint should at least allege that a valid Notice to Quit has expired.

129. Prop. Mgmt. Servs. v. Hatcher, 479 Mass. 542 (2018) (property managers do not have standing to bring evictions unless they are the property owner or the lessor.); David A. Brossi LLC v. Bordes, Central Housing Court, No. 23-H85-SP-3451 (Mitchell-Munevar, J. Oct. 12, 2023); Sciasca v. Wilt, Northeast Housing Court, No. 20-H77-SP-2443 (Mitchell-Munevar, J. Nov. 1, 2021) (property manager lacked standing); Taylor Realty Tr. v. Johnson, Northeast Housing Court, No. 21-H77-SP-2377 (Mitchell-Munevar, J. Nov. 5, 2021)(trustee, not trust, had standing).

130. Corcoran v. Jervis, Eastern Housing Court, No. 17-H84-SP-3566 (Theophilis, J. Sept. 7, 2018).

131. G.L. c. 239 § 15.

132. Porter v. Merrill, 124 Mass. 534, 541 (1878).

133. Paeff v. Hawkins-Washington Realty, 320 Mass. 144, 145 (1946); Saxeney v. Panis, 239 Mass. 207, 210 (1921); Nelson Theater Co. v. Nelson, 216 Mass. 30, 34 (1913); Anderson v. Lissandri, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 191, 196 (1985); Roberts Milford Assocs. & Rolling Green Management v. Weaver, Worcester Superior Court, 84-29046 (Travers, Jr., J., Mar. 5, 1985); Allen Park Assocs. v. Lewandowski, Hampden Housing Court, 99-RD-9400-9 (Abrashkin, J., May 8, 1989) (landlord accepted rent from tenant for several years while knowing tenant owned a dog, did not object, and allowed other tenants to keep pets without objection; landlord has waived objection to tenant's dog despite a no-pet clause in lease); Cardaropoli v. Panagos, Hampden Housing Court, SP-3144-S-84 (Peck, Jr., J., June 4, 1984).

134. Evidence of oral consent would generally not be admissible if it took place before or at the time of the signing of a written lease.

135. See M.J.G. Properties v. Hurley, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 250 (1989); Tage II v. Ducas (U.S.) Realty Corp., 17 Mass. App. Ct. 664 (1984).

136. London v. Tebo, 246 Mass. 360, 362-63 (1923) (acceptance of rent does not waive landlord's right to terminate for a continuing breach, which here was the tenant's covenant to repair); Corcoran Management Co. v. Withers, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 736 (1987) (landlord's acceptance of rent without reservation of rights did not establish new tenancy where tenant had received numerous notices from landlord that his conduct was considered to be in violation of lease and where tenant signed agreement that provided that acceptance of rent for use and occupation shall not be deemed as a waiver).

137. Roseman v. Day, 345 Mass. 93 (1962); Globe Leather & Shoe Findings, Inc. v. Golburgh, 339 Mass. 380 (1959) (renewal of month-to-month tenancy by acceptance of rent); Mulcahy & Dean, Inc. v. Hanley, 332 Mass. 232, 235 (1955) (sublet breach); Kaplan v. Flynn, 255 Mass. 127 (1926) (renewal equitably blocks forfeiture of lease); CMJ Management Co. v. Paris, Boston Housing Court, 96-03148 (Winik, J., Nov. 22, 1996); Cardaropoli v. Panagos, Hampden Housing Court, SP-3144-S-84 (Peck, Jr., J., June 4, 1984). 

138. Mulcahy & Dean, Inc. v. Hanley, 332 Mass. 232, 236 (1955) (sublet breach).

139. Howard D. Johnson Co. v. Madigan, 361 Mass. 454 (1972); Atkins v. Chilson, 52 Mass. 112 (1846); Goldstein v. Tarantino, Norfolk Superior Court, 85-69 (Elam, J., July 3, 1985); Boston Housing Authority v. Bridgewaters, 452 Mass. 833 (2009). 

If you bring up the fact that you have a disability and need an accommodation to be able to defend against the eviction, the court should grant those accommodations. Adjartey v. Central Div. of Housing Court Dept., 481 Mass. 830 (2019).

140. Cheuk v. Chase, No. 03-SP-02369 (Boston Housing Ct. (Winik, J., July 8, 2003); Cruz Management v. Celado, Boston Housing Court, No. 09-SP-2567 (Winik, J., Aug. 19, 2009); Father Martin Cooperative Homes v. Berry, Boston Housing Court, No. 02-SP-00248 (Edwards, J., Oct. 15, 2002); Diletizia v. Mackie, Boston Housing Court, No. 01-SP-05825 (Winik, J., Jan. 4, 2002); The Community Builders, Inc. v. Scarcella, Boston Housing Court, No. 11-SP-1756 (Muirhead, J July 20, 2011) (exclusion of wrongdoing household member would have been sufficient if court could rely on such exclusion); Chicopee Housing Authority v. Maldonado, Hampden Housing Court, No. SP-2682-C87 (Abrashkin, J., May 27, 1987) Rogerson House, Inc. v. O'Brien, Boston Housing Court, SP No. 33105 (Nov. 5, 1984); Maloney Props., Inc. v. Simon, Boston Housing Court, No. 96-SP-00174 (Winik, J., May 24, 1996); Benchmark Apartment Management v. Williams, Boston Housing Court, No. 96-SP-02621 (Winik, J., June 3, 1996). 

141. Counterclaims in summary process are not compulsory. U.S.P.R. 5.

142. G.L. c. 239, §8A.

143. G.L. c. 239, §8A.

144. G.L. c. 239, §8A. There are several possible rationales for this defense. One is that the plain language of G.L. c. 239, §8A says that claims can be used as a defense. Another is that if the court awards the tenant any money on their counterclaims in a no-fault eviction that is not based on non-payment of rent, then the tenant will have recovered more money than the landlord and will retain possession under G.L. c. 239, §8A. A third possible rationale is that G.L. c. 239, §8A creates a "clean hands" doctrine that prohibits a landlord who has violated their tenant's rights from regaining possession in an eviction where the tenant is without fault.

145. Spence v. O'Brien, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 489 (1983). This case did not define "fault," but made it clear that it is more than any "cause" and must involve "wrongdoing" or the toleration of another's "wrongdoing."

G.L. c. 239, § 8A does not provide a counterclaim if the tenancy is terminated for fault or the property was not rented to the occupant. SeeMastropietro v. Rodriguez Robles, Northeast Housing Court, No. 17-H77-SP-5540 (Kerman, J. Feb. 12, 2018); Nicholas v. Nicholas, Eastern Housing Court, No. 17-H84-SP-4674 (Winik, F.J. May 22, 2018).

146. TTFN Corp. v. Tannian,Eastern Housing Court, No. 18-H84-SP-3837 (Bagdoian, J. Dec. 14, 2018).

147. Ednson Realty Trust v. Robinson, Hampden Housing Court, 88-SP-7252-C (Abrashkin, J., Nov. 21, 1988). In Ednson Realty, the court rejected a landlord's claim that G.L. c. 239, §8A precludes counterclaims in fault-based evictions. The court noted that §8A and U.S.P.R. 5 state that counterclaims shall be permitted in no-fault cases, but do not say that they cannot be permitted in other cases. It also noted that other counterclaims are available outside of §8A and that courts retain discretion under U.S.P.R. 5 to sever those counterclaims where appropriate. 

148. G.L. c. 239, §2A as amended by St. 1978, c. 149. This amendment added the requirement that the presumption of retaliation can be overcome only if the landlord presents "clear and convincing evidence."

The second part of this standard is often overlooked by the courts, but is very important, especially for tenants at will in a "no-fault" eviction, since it requires the landlord to prove a legitimate reason for the eviction. It is also important in cases where the tenant is "at fault." (For example, if your landlord claims that they are evicting you because you have a pet in violation of your tenancy agreement, but your landlord has known about the pet for a long time and didn't bring the eviction until you engaged in some protected activity, it would be very difficult for them to overcome the presumption of retaliation because they could have previously evicted you for the given reason.) See Collin v. Eldridge, Worcester Superior Court, 28794 (Oct. 23, 1984); Michel v. Monfiston, Boston Housing Court, 06-SP-1613 (Winik, J., June 21, 2006); Genovevo v. Gallagher, Hampden Housing Court, 94-SP-4371 (Abrashkin, J., May 17, 1995); Walker v. Lewis, Boston Housing Court, No. 14-SP-5223 (Muirhead, J., Feb. 4, 2015). But see Barretto-Morse v. Laiacona, 2014 Mass. App. Div. 141 (2014) (court finds that where the tenant made a complaint about poor housing conditions after receiving a 14 day Notice to Quit that tenant may not be entitled to a retaliation defense).

The retaliation defense under G.L. c. 239, §2A applies to all eviction cases, including non-payment of rent cases. Compare G.L. c. 186, §18 (sending Notice to Quit for non-payment of rent does not trigger presumption of retaliation). You may be able to use this defense successfully in a non-payment case where the landlord sent a Notice to Quit for non-payment shortly after your rent was due and within 6 months of your engaging in protected activities. Your claim would be stronger if your landlord usually waits a month or two for late rent before sending non-payment notices. However, there may be no retaliation defense if the tenant does not show that the owner was aware of a discrimination complaint prior to the eviction filing. See Albert Corp. v. Gove & Descoteaux, Eastern Housing Court, No. 19-H84-SP-4126 (Muirhead, F.J. Court Oct. 28, 2019).

149. Stone Run East Assocs. v. McDonald and Harrison, Quincy District Court, E-88-0002, E-88-0003 (Sept. 19, 1988). In Stone Run, a handicapped tenant raised a discrimination defense in an eviction brought by a landlord because the tenant allegedly interfered with the rights of other tenants and permitted unauthorized occupants to reside in the apartment in violation of the lease. The court rejected the landlord's claim that G.L. c. 239, §8A precluded the tenant's defenses in a fault-based eviction, holding that "the court cannot be in a position to assist a landlord in pursuing a discriminatory eviction. For purposes of this motion I must assume that there has been discrimination. If the defendant is able to establish that discrimination is the motive underlying the termination of the tenancy then it should be a bar to the action."

150. See East Boston Three Realty Trust v. Piantedosi, Boston Housing Court, 35497 (Martin, J., July 15, 1985); McDonagh v. Wible, Boston Housing Court, 36012 (Martin, J., July 12, 1985). 

151. Discrimination, or failure to reasonably accommodate a tenant with a disability, may be raised as an affirmative defense to eviction and as a counterclaim. See Boston Hous. Auth. v. Bridgewaters, 452 Mass. 833 (2009); Andover Hous. Auth. v. Shkolnik, 443 Mass. 300 (2005); City Wide Assocs. v. Penfield, 409 Mass. 140 (1991); Whittier Terrace Assocs. v. Hampshire, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 1020 (1989). But see FNHMC v. Gomez, Boston Housing Court, No. 12-SP-1497 (Winik, F.J., June 23, 2014) (a request for below market rent as an accommodation for a disabled person who is unable to work is not reasonable, unlike a situation where such a tenant obtained a subsidy which would assist them in paying the market rent).

152. City Wide Assocs. v. Penfield, 409 Mass. 140 (1991) (mentally handicapped tenant who caused damage to unit could not be evicted without reasonable accommodations). See also Sears v. Colson, Hampden Housing Court, 93-SP-3174 (Abrashkin, J., Jan. 12, 1993); Worcester Housing Authority v. Santis, Worcester Housing Court, 89-SP-0471 (Martin, J., Nov. 7, 1989). 

153. Whittier Terrace Assocs. v. Hampshire, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 1020, 532 (1989) (rescript).

154. 34 U.S.C. § 12491(a)(3).

155. Definitions of abuse covered by VAWA (which incorporate by reference the definition of abuse in state law under G.L. c. 209A §1):

Domestic violence: felony or misdemeanor crimes committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim under the family or domestic violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant funding and, … includes the use or attempted use of physical abuse or sexual abuse, or a pattern of any other coercive behavior committed, enabled, or solicited to gain or maintain power and control over a victim, including verbal, psychological, economic, or technological abuse that may or may not constitute criminal behavior, by a person who—

  • (A) is a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim, or person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim;
  • (B) is cohabitating, or has cohabitated, with the victim as a spouse or intimate partner;
  • (C) shares a child in common with the victim; or
  • (D) commits acts against a youth or adult victim who is protected from those acts under the family or domestic violence laws of the jurisdiction. See 34 U.S.C. § 12291(12).

Dating violence: violence committed by a person—

  • (A) who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the victim; and
  • (B) where the existence of such a relationship shall be determined based on a consideration of the following factors:
    • (i)The length of the relationship.
    • (ii)The type of relationship.
    • (iii)The frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the relationship. See 34 U.S.C. § 12291(11).

Sexual assault: any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by Federal, tribal, or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent. See 34 U.S.C. § 12291(35).

Stalking: engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to—(A) fear for his or her safety or the safety of others; or (B) suffer substantial emotional distress. See 34 U.S.C. § 12291(36).

156. 34 U.S.C. § 12491(b)(1); 24 C.F.R. § 5.2005(b)(1). 

157. 34 U.S.C. § 12491(b)(3)(A).

158. 34 U.S.C. § 12491(d)(2)(C).

159. 34 U.S.C. § 12491(c)(2).

160. Id. See also New Bedford Hous. Auth. v. K.R., 97 Mass. App. Ct. 509, 515 (2020).

161. 24 C.F.R. § 5.2009(c) (HUD encourages housing providers to “undertake whatever actions permissible and feasible under their respective programs to assist individuals residing in their units who are victims… to remain in their units …and for the covered housing provider to bear the costs of any transfer, where permissible.”)

162. Boston Hous. Auth. v. Y.A., 482 Mass. 240 (2019).

163. Id. 

164. See Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities Checklist of Required Verification Documents for Housing Situation Priority Status for “Abusive Situation”: Abusive situation needs to be documented through at least one or more of the following based upon the Applicant’s individual circumstances: 

  • medical reports 
  • police reports 
  • court reports 
  • applicant has attempted to get restraining order
  • applicant has filed a civil or criminal complaint against accused 
  • letter from attorney stating case 
  • letter from counselor 
  • psychological report 
  • letter from social service agency 
  • detailed 3rd part written explanation of the circumstances that led to Applicant’s present housing situation

https://www.mass.gov/doc/more-information-about-homeless-priority-eligibility/download. 

165. See PHN 2020-39, LHA Responsibilities to Tenants and Applicants who are Victims of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (November 19, 2020).

166. 760 C.M.R. § 6.06(4)(q) requires that an LHA must provide reasonable and appropriate assistance to tenants who are victims of domestic violence

167. G.L. c. 239 § 2A.

168. Boston Hous. Auth. v. Hemingway, 363 Mass. 184 (1973).

169. G.L. c. 239, §8A.

170. G.L. c. 239, §8A. No cases have specifically dealt with the definition of an "occupant" under the statute, but it apparently includes those who may not fit a strict definition of "tenant."

171. A landlord who sends only a 14-day notice for non-payment of rent cannot rely on any allegations of tenant fault since they would have been required to send a 30-day notice for fault-based eviction. Kahaly v. Sinke, Roxbury District Court, 12164 (Martin, Jr., J., Nov. 25, 1987).

172. See Weston Assocs. v. Roberts, No. 17-H84-SP-5397 (Eastern Housing Court Theophilis, J. Feb. 5, 2018) (Theophilis, J.); Trinity Mgmt. v. Roberson, Eastern Housing Court, No. 19-H84-SP-1298 (Theophilis, J. May 14, 2019).

173. G.L. c. 239, §8A allows a tenant or occupant to base a defense or counterclaim on any claim against the landlord that relates to the property, rental, tenancy, or occupancy. It is therefore possible to defend against a non-payment or no-fault eviction whenever your landlord has violated any term of your tenancy agreement, breached the warranty of habitability, or violated any relevant law or regulation. If the tenant's defense or counterclaim is based on the condition of the premises or services provided, the tenant must comply with the specific requirements specified in G.L. c. 239, §8A. 

174. G.L. c. 239, §8A, ¶3 makes inspection reports prima facie evidence that a defense and counterclaim exist.

175. G.L. c. 239, §8A. The Board of Health is required to provide this certification on its inspection report. 105 C.M.R. §410.821(A)(8).

176. If a tenant can show notice of some conditions claims prior to rental arrears, but cannot show pre-arrears notice of other conditions claims, the tenant may still win a G.L. c. 239, § 8A defense. Gomes v. Castro & Valdez, Northeast Housing Court, No. 18-H84- SP-3032 (Michaud, J. Aug. 8, 2018).

177. McKenna v. Begin, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 168 (1975).

178. G.L. c. 239, §8A allows a tenant or occupant to base a defense or counterclaim on any claim against the landlord that relates to the property, rental, tenancy, or occupancy. It is therefore possible to defend against a non-payment or no-fault eviction whenever your landlord has violated any term of your tenancy agreement, breached the warranty of habitability, or violated any relevant law or regulation. If the tenant's defense or counterclaim is based on the condition of the premises or services provided, the tenant must comply with the specific requirements specified in G.L. c. 239, §8A. 

179. Boston Hous. Auth. v. Hemingway, 363 Mass. 184 (1973).

180. Haddad v. Gonzalez, 410 Mass. 855, 872-73 (1991).

181. G.L. c. 186, § 15B. Meikle v. Nurse, 474 Mass. 207 (2015); Tringali v. O'Leary, 2015 Mass. App. Div. 110 (2015); Karaa v. Kuk Yim, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 714 (2014); Stacy v. Zhao, 2013 Mass. App. Div. 59 (2013); Gallo v. Marinelli, Boston Housing Court, No. 15-SP-1469 (Muirhead, J., May 19, 2015; June 8, 2015). 

182. Mass. General Laws c. 186 §15B and/or actual or statutory damages under Mass. General Laws c. 93A. See, e.g., Sobers v. Taylor, Eastern Housing Court, No. 17-H84-SP-3886 (Theophilis, J. Apr. 12, 2018). But the tenant does not have a counterclaim where an owner returns the security deposit after the demand in a summary process answer. See Cruz v. Norat-Reyes, Western Housing Court, No. 17-H79-SP-181 (Fields, J. Mar. 1, 2017); Casserly Props. Land Tr. v. Green, Eastern Housing Court, No. 17-H84-SP-3820 (Theophilis, J. May 9, 2018). 

183. G.L. c. 239, §8A. This is a very broad-based defense and includes Sanitary Code violations, breach of the warranty of habitability, breach of any material term of the rental agreement, or any violation of law related to the tenancy, such as a breach of quiet enjoyment or violation of the security deposit requirements. See Meikle v. Nurse, 474 Mass. 207 (2015); Lawrence v. Osuaqwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2001); Amory Realty Trust v. Diaz, Boston Housing Court, 33820 (King, J., May 31, 1985). 

184. G.L. c. 239, §8A. c. 186, §15B; and/or c. 93A

185. G.L. c. 186, § 14. See, e.g., Bermudez v. Anderson, Boston Housing Court, No. 12-SP-3505 (Muirhead, J., Apr. 5, 2013); Yuan v. Gero, Eastern Housing Court, No. 18-H84-SP-3535 (Muirhead, F.J. Aug. 22, 2018).

186. G.L. c. 186, §14; Shea v. Delaney, 2016 Mass. App. Div. 68 (it was a breach of quiet enjoyment for the landlord to enter the property without notice or permission and remove furniture belonging to the landlord and an award of $15,675.75 were not excessive.) But see Clark v. Leisure Woods Estates, Inc., 89 Mass. App. Ct. 87 (2016) (manufactured home residents could recover only one triple rent award for operator’s quiet enjoyment violations.)

187. G.L. c. 186, §14. These damages can be lessened by a set-off claim by your landlord for rent due. Simon v. Solomon, 385 Mass. 91 (1982). 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 is 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). See also Homesavers Council of Greenfield Gardens v. Sanchez, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 453 (2007), for a full discussion of emotional distress damages under G.L. c. 186, §14. 

188. Ferreira v. Charland, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 194 (2023) (landlord’s reimbursement for unlawful charge of water bills did not prevent the tenant from raising a defense and counterclaim based on the landlord’s conduct.)

189. Violations under G.L. c. 186, §14, includes: willful or intentional failure to provide utilities required by the law or the rental agreement; cutting off tenant's utilities; transferring responsibility of payment for utilities to tenant without tenant's knowledge or consent; moving tenant out or changing the locks without a court order; and interfering with tenant's ability to enjoy the home in any other way. 

190. G.L. c. 186, §14.

191. Homesavers Council of Greenfield Gardens, Inc. v. Sanchez, 770 Mass.App.Ct. 453 (2007); Simon v. Solomon, 385 Mass. 91 (1982).

192. The Consumer Protection Act, G.L. c. 93A, was explicitly extended to cover owners and tenants by St. 1971, Chapter 241, approved by the Legislature on April 29, 1971. The 1971 amendment gave the protection of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act to "any person who purchases or leases goods or services, real or personal, primarily for personal, family, or household purposes." The next year the Legislature passed St. 1972, Chapter 123. This amendment explicitly expanded the definition of "trade" and "commerce" in G.L. c. 93A to include rental housing by amending §1(b) of G.L. c. 93A. In Leardi v. Brown, 394 Mass. 151 (1985), the Supreme Judicial Court noted that tenants are among those for whose benefit the Consumer Protection law was passed. The Supreme Judicial Court noted that: "The 1972 amendment to the definition of trade or commerce, adding express reference to the renting and leasing of services or property, did not expand, but only clarified, the scope of the words 'trade' or 'commerce'." Commonwealth v. DeCotis, 366 Mass. 234, 239 (1975). For a detailed discussion of the purposes of G.L. c. 93A, see Slaney v. Westwood Auto, 366 Mass. 688 (1975), and PMP Assocs. Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co., 366 Mass. 593, 596 (1975). 

193. G.L. c. 93A, §2(a) prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." The definition of "act or practice" in the Attorney General's "General Regulations" was amended in 1975 to include "any threat or attempt to perform such act or practice." See 940 C.M.R. §3.01(1). The Attorney General has further declared that an act or practice is in violation of G.L. c. 93A, §2 if it is oppressive or otherwise unconscionable in any respect. 940 C.M.R. §3.16(1). 

194. But see Henriquez v. Ahearn & Kocher, Northeast Housing Court, No. 18-H77-SP-4781 (Dalton, F.J. Apr. 23, 2019) where the court decided that an owner-occupant of a two-family home was not exempt because they were also a realtor.

195. G.L. c. 239, §8A. This is a very broad-based defense and includes Sanitary Code violations, breach of the warranty of habitability, breach of any material term of the rental agreement, or any violation of law related to the tenancy, such as a breach of quiet enjoyment or violation of the security deposit requirements. See Meikle v. Nurse, 474 Mass. 207 (2015); Lawrence v. Osuaqwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2001); Amory Realty Trust v. Diaz, Boston Housing Court, 33820 (King, J., May 31, 1985). 

196. See 940 C.M.R. § 3.17.

197. For example, a term that says that you waive the right to a rent abatement for excessive noise from construction. One Greenway PR LCC v. D & B Worldwide, Eastern Housing Court, No. 18-H84-SP-1120 (Theophilis, J. Sept. 18, 2018). Or a term that says you will pay your landlord’s attorney’s fees regardless of the outcome of the eviction case. Pelletier v. Arnold & Tripodes, Western Housing Court, No. 17-H79-CV-1076 (Fields, J. Nov. 2, 2018).

198. See Ndoro v. Torres, __­N.E.3d__(2024)(landlord’s failure to repair substantial State Sanitary Code violations within fourteen days of notice was not reasonable and violated c. 93A).

199. G.L. c. 93A, §9.

Fighting an Eviction in Court
Challenging a Court-Ordered Eviction

Ver más en

Ver más en

¿Le resultó útil esta página?