Landlord Tenant Law

Massachusetts Landlords: Be Aware Of “The Professional Tenant”

by Rich Vetstein on February 19, 2012

in Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Real Estate Litigation

Avoid The Professional Tenant Like The Plague

Using best practices to screen and select good tenants is the most important thing a Massachusetts landlord can do to avoid costly non-payment and eviction problems down the road, as I have posted about on this Blog. As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

In my 14 years of practice, I have come across a sub-set of tenants which are extremely dangerous to Massachusetts landlords. They should be avoided like the Plague. I like to call them Professional Tenants.

Let me give you the profile of a typical Professional Tenant. (This is a generalization based on my personal experience, but it’s fairly accurate).

  • History of eviction history and/or delinquency with prior landlords
  • Surprising (and dangerous) knowledge of Massachusetts landlord-tenant law
  • Background in real estate, engineering, contracting
  • Marginal to bad credit: prior history of nonpayment collections, judgments or bankruptcies
  • Gaps in rental history
  • Non-existent or incomplete prior landlord references

The Professional Tenant’s Scheme

Shortly after moving in, they will start to complain about small issues with the rental property. Some will complain to the local board of health to have the landlord cited for code violations. (The state Sanitary Code can trip up even the most conscientious landlord.) Then the Professional Tenant will stop paying rent, claiming they are “withholding rent” due to bad property conditions. Of course, these tenants completely ignore the smart practice that any withheld rent be placed in an escrow account. Then the Professional Tenant will assert the landlord violated the last month rent and security deposit law, and ask for their deposit back, trying to set up the landlord for a triple damage claim.

In the meantime, months go by and the Professional Tenant has failed to pay any rent and the minor code violations, if any, are repaired. The landlord is forced to start eviction proceedings, only to be met with a slew of counterclaims and defenses from the Professional Tenant. The Professional Tenant then sends the landlord a myriad of document requests and interrogatories which automatically delays the eviction hearing by 2 weeks. If the Professional Tenant is really savvy, they will demand a jury trial, which in most small District Courts can delay the eviction by weeks and typically months. Meanwhile, the entire time, the Professional Tenant has still not paid any rent.

Months and thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees later, the landlord finally gets his day in court. And the Professional Tenant doesn’t show up, leaving the landlord with a worthless judgment for thousands in unpaid rent and a trashed apartment.

Screen and Screen Again

The sad thing is that because Massachusetts landlord-tenant law is so tenant friendly, there is not much a landlord can do to avoid this situation, other than not rent to the Professional Tenant in the first place! Once a landlord has signed a lease with a Professional Tenant, they are stuck until the tenant violates the lease. My advice to landlords is to make screening the most important thing you do as a landlord, and do the following:

  • Invest in good credit history checks.
  • Follow up with landlord references
  • Check employment info
  • Check prior bankruptcies
  • If someone seems fishy, they probably are

If you find yourself stuck with a Professional Tenant, give me a call. There are certain things an experienced eviction attorney can do to prevent or minimize these shenanigans. At least you will be fighting back against what I perceive as scam artists.

_______________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts landlord tenant and eviction attorney. Please contact him with any questions.

{ 11 comments }

Apartment “Amenity Use Fee” Ruled Unlawful In Class Action Against Archstone Properties

by Rich Vetstein on February 11, 2012

in Disclosures, Landlord Tenant Law, Leasing, Massachusetts Real Estate Law

Federal Judge Rules $475 Apartment Amenity Use Fee Violates Massachusetts Security Deposit Law

Some large apartment owners, such as Archstone Properties, have been charging tenants a separate “amenity use fee” for use of the community pool, workout room, media center and other amenities, or a separate “move-in” fee or pet fee. The fees can be rather hefty; several hundred dollars in many cases. Well, a federal judge recently struck down these fees as illegal under the Massachusetts Security Deposit Law. What’s more, the judge has allowed a class action to proceed against Archstone Reading apartment complex which may be on the hook for thousands if not millions in refunds to tenants. Other apartment complexes may have legal exposure if they used similar amenity use fees.

Massachusetts Amenity Fee Class Action

The case is Hermida v. Archstone Properties (D. Mass. Nov. 29, 2011). The case arose out of a $475 amenity use fee charged by Archstone Properties in their Reading, Massachusetts apartment complex. The judge ruled that under Massachusetts law, landlords can only charge tenants for: (1) first month’s rent, (2) last month’s rent, (3) a security deposit, and (4) a key installation fee. The additional amenity use fee is illegal, Judge Young ruled, if it is required, not optional, and charged up front, i.e, a condition to renting. Judge Young also approved the case for class action status.

The class action attorney handling the case, Matthew Fogelman, Esq., is also investigating whether other apartment complexes and landlords have charged similar amenity use fees, move in fees and/or pet fees, for potential class actions against those apartment complexes. If you were ever charged a separate amenity use fee, move-in fee, or pet fee as part of your rental lease, please email me at [email protected] and I will put you in contact with the case attorney. You could be entitled to a refund of several hundred dollars and possibly additional compensation.

Alert: Property managers are asking tenants to sign releases to get a refund of their amenity use fees. DO NOT SIGN ANY RELEASE OR WAIVER FORM UNTIL YOU HAVE CONSULTED WITH AN ATTORNEY. YOU COULD BE WAIVING YOUR RIGHT TO COLLECT THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION.

_________________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts Real Estate Litigation Attorney who has litigated hundreds of cases in the Massachusetts Land and Superior Courts. For further information you can contact him at [email protected].

This post may be considered “attorney advertising.”

{ 13 comments }

Massachusetts Real Estate Litigation: What You Can Expect Going To Trial, Part 2

by Rich Vetstein on December 20, 2011

in Adverse Possession, Condominium Law, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Permitting/Zoning, Real Estate Litigation

Part 2 of a two part series. For part 1 on filing the Complaint, Venue and Discovery click here.

Expert Testimony

We left off in our last post at the discovery state of litigation. We covered fact discovery of witnesses, but we didn’t address an important component of most real estate litigation cases: experts.

Expert testimony is required when you need to explain to a judge or jury a technical area of the case which is outside the general knowledge of a “regular” person. Experts in a Massachusetts real estate lawsuit can range from appraisers, construction experts, land surveyors, title attorneys, land use planners, civil and wetlands engineers, traffic planners, and handwriting experts. Needless to say, experts are expensive, charging several hundred dollars per hour on an engagement. But they are vitally important. In Massachusetts state court litigation, parties must disclose before trial an expert’s qualifications and a general summary of what the expert will testify to at trial, including his methodology. For litigators like myself, preparing and cross-examining experts is often quite an intellectual challenge and one of the “fun” parts of a trial.

Dispositive Motions

Often in real estate litigation, the case can be decided by way of a “dispositive motion” by the judge prior to trial. In this procedure, called a motion to dismiss or summary judgment, the important facts of the case are undisputed, and the judge can decide the case based on the law. The lawyers will prepare detailed motions, affidavits, and legal briefs, and there will usually be a lengthy hearing before the judge. This procedure will also avoid the need for a trial, saving litigants a much expense. Judges, however, can take a long time deciding a dispositive motion. Months to even a full year is not unheard of.

Pretrial Conference

If the facts of the case are hotly disputed, the case will be set down for a trial date at the pre-trial conference. At the pre-trial conference, the attorneys meet with the judge to discuss readiness for trial, witness lists, expert testimony, unusual legal or evidentiary issues, and the status of settlement talks, if any.

Obtaining a firm trial day these days is pretty much a moving target. It really depends on the county. Middlesex Superior is pretty good at giving firm trial dates, while Norfolk County is not, in my experience.  The Land Court gives out firm trial dates, but has no juries. Prepare to wait several months after the pre-trial conference to get a trial date, which will probably be rescheduled at least once. Massachusetts courts have been beset with budget cuts which has negatively impacted the speed of the courts’ docket. Justice moves slowly in the Commonwealth.

Settlement/Mediation

Given the huge costs and delays of litigation, this is a good place to talk about settlement and mediation. I always explore settlement possibilities of a case early on. If a case can be settled early, both litigants can avoid significant legal expenses and can usually craft a better resolution than a judge or jury can. But clients often come to me very upset and emotional about the situation, so talking settlement may be perceived as “caving in” to the other side. It is not, and clients usually see the light once they get a bill or two from my office.

Mediation is a non-binding settlement process where a neutral mediator (usually a retired judge or experienced attorney) will mediate the dispute between the parties in a structured manner. Both sides get to tell their sides of the story, then the mediator will usually separate the parties into different rooms, shuttling back and forth attempting to broker the peace. There is a cathartic and healing process that often occurs during mediation where parties have a chance to express their anger, resentment, and feelings which can greatly assist the settlement process. Also, the settlement itself often can be much more flexible and creative than what a judge or jury can render after a trial. If mediation does not work out, the case goes back on the trial list. There is no obligation to settle.

Trial

Less than 1% of all civil cases in Massachusetts get to the end of a trial. If your case is in this 1%, prepare yourself for an experience. Jury trials are not for the faint of heart. They are incredibly labor intensive, with the attorneys spending hours upon hours preparing for trial, and burning the midnight oil during the trial itself. The more lawyer time required, the higher the legal bill.

If you are selecting a Massachusetts litigation or trial attorney, ask him or her how many civil jury trials they have done. I’m not talking about former district attorneys who have done a bunch of criminal trials. Complex, civil trials are a totally different animal and call for a lawyer who has done a significant amount of civil trial work. Be wary of any lawyer who claims to have won every trial he has done. There is a saying that a trial lawyer who has never lost a case hasn’t tried many in the first place. Don’t be afraid of small law firm attorneys. In my experience, they are much better trying cases than big firm lawyers who spent the greater part of their careers doing document review and depositions.

Appeals

In the American judicial system, litigants can pretty much appeal anything with impunity. Filing an appeal will usually stop a final judgment from issuing, but in some cases the winning party can ask the losing party to post a bond.

Appeals requires a special skill set, great research, and writing by an experienced Massachusetts appellate attorney. The appeals process can take at least a year or even more to complete. The trial record must be assembled by the trial court. If there was a trial, transcripts need to be ordered from the court reporters or digital tapes and then transcribed. This can take quite a bit of time. Then, the attorneys file lengthy appellate briefs, after which the case is scheduled for oral argument before a panel of appellate justices. After oral argument is held, the court will issue its written opinion, which will either uphold the lower court’s decision, reverse it, or remand it back for a new trial or other action. Appellate opinions are released to the general public and become what is known as the common law of Massachusetts, to be cited as precedent in other cases.

Well, that’s it for now. Remember, litigation should be a last resort, once all attempts at an amicable, reasonable resolution fail.

____________________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts Real Estate Litigation Attorney who has litigated hundreds of cases in the Massachusetts Land and Superior Courts. For further information you can contact him at [email protected].

{ 2 comments }

The Toga Party Is Over: Renting To Four Or More College Students Is Illegal Lodging House

by Rich Vetstein on November 15, 2011

in Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Permitting/Zoning, Rental Housing, Zoning

Update: SJC Reverses, Rules in favor of Landlords

Major Impact To College Rental Market: Landlords Cannot Rent To 4 or More Unrelated Adults In One Unit Without Lodging License

In a decision which will significantly impact landlords renting apartments to students near local colleges and universities and perhaps beyond Boston and Amherst, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that renting to 4 or more unrelated students in one apartment unit is an illegal “lodging house” unless a special license is obtained.

In City of Worcester v. College Hill Properties LLC (Mass. App. Ct. Nov. 8, 2011), several landlords renting to Holy Cross students challenged the legality of the Massachusetts lodging housing law. The law requires a lodging housing license for any unit rented to four or more unrelated adults. City of Worcester officials cited the College Hill landlords for renting to 4 students in each apartment unit, without a proper license and without sprinkler systems. The students all signed a 12 month lease. The Housing Court sided with the city, and when the landlords balked, found them in contempt.

Lodging Housing Law

Although enacted nearly a hundred years ago in 1918, the court found that the lodging house law has relevance today with respect to the common practice of overcrowding persons in an unsuitable space and fire prevention. To obtain a lodging house license, an applicant must have sprinkler systems in the premises, which most landlords find too expensive to install.

The landlords argued that a group of four college students was a “family unit” not lodgers. While the landlords get credit for creative lawyering, the court didn’t buy the argument, holding that “we have no doubt that four or more unrelated adults, sharing housing while attending college, is not an arrangement that lends itself to the formation of a stable and durable household.”

Impact Outside College Towns?

Prior to this decision, housing authorities typically allowed 4 or more unrelated adults to occupy single apartments as roommates without a lodging license provided that minimum space requirements were met: 150 s.f. of living space for the first person, 100 s.f. for each additional person (3 occupants = 350 s.f. of living space); 70 s.f. of bedroom space for 1st person, plus 50 s.f. for additional person (120 s.f. for 2 persons in one bedroom).

After the College Hill decision, however, this generally accepted interpretation is now in question. The court did not mention adult roommates, nor did it make any distinction between undergraduates or adults. In my opinion, using the College Hill ruling, housing authorities, who want to crack down on unruly, crowded apartment dwellers, may seek to require lodging licenses for apartments occupied by 4 or more unrelated persons.

Boston: Rule Is 5+ Undergrads

In the City of Boston, a new zoning ordinance went into effect in 2008 prohibiting 5 or more undergraduate students from living in one apartment unit. We will see how the Boston Inspectional Services Dept. interprets the College Hill ruling.

________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate and landlord-tenant attorney. Please contact him if you need legal assistance with rental property legal issues.

{ 1 comment }

Get Out! A Landlord’s Guide to Massachusetts Evictions

by Rich Vetstein on October 7, 2011

in Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Real Estate Litigation

Massachusetts Summary Process Evictions: An Unlevel Playing Field For Landlords

How do you evict a tenant in Massachusetts? In Massachusetts, evictions are called “summary process.” According to the rules governing eviction cases, summary process is supposed to be “just, speedy, and inexpensive.” In practice, however, summary process can be anything but that. In fact, as I always inform my landlord clients, Massachusetts is one of the most tenant friendly states in the country, and an eviction can be costly, frustrating and unfair to landlords. In some cases, it can take many months to evict a tenant.

Further, Massachusetts eviction practice is loaded with traps for the unwary and procedural complexities for landlords. Landlords who represent themselves do so at their own peril and will often arrive at court with their cases dismissed for not following these requirements. It’s not a do-it-yourself situation.

Grounds For Eviction

A.      Non-payment

There are several common grounds for evicting a tenant. The most common is for non-payment of rent. In these cases, the landlord must send the tenant a statutory 14 day “notice to quit” before starting the eviction process. The 14 day notice to quit must be drafted carefully, and the best practice is to have it served by a constable or sheriff to ensure proof of delivery. The landlord must prove in court that the tenant received the notice, and service by constable or sheriff will automatically qualify as “good service.” Certified mail is not good enough as tenants can avoid pickup. Having an experienced eviction attorney draft the notice to quit can prevent have your case being “dead on arrival.”

B.      No-Fault

Another common ground for eviction is for termination of a 30 day tenancy at will, otherwise known as a no-fault eviction. Again, a 30 day notice to quit must be served on the tenant before commencing an eviction. Landlords often trip up on this type of notice with short months. In practice, judges will often give tenants in no-fault evictions a bit more leeway in terms of vacating the premises.

C.      For cause

“For cause” evictions encompass the range of bad behavior by tenants in violation of lease provisions. It could be illegal activity, drug use, excessive noise, uncleanliness, harassment of other residents, non-approved “roommates” and the like. Like all other evictions, the landlord must issue a notice to quit to the tenant stating the specifics of the offenses. “For cause” evictions are the most involved of all evictions as the landlord must offer proof by way of live testimony of the tenant’s violations of the lease. Getting police officers to show up for an eviction hearing can be challenging. For drugs and other illegal activity, Massachusetts also has a special expedited eviction process.

Read our post on the Massachusetts Notice To Quit: Don’t Be Dead On Arrival At Eviction Court

Going to Court

Starting an eviction requires the preparation and service of a Summary Process Summons and Complaint. You can choose to file your case in the local District Court or the Housing Court which is specialized to hear evictions. The Housing Court fees are less expensive, but can be busier. Some Housing Court judges have the reputation of being tenant or landlord friendly as well. Some would probably be happier retired and playing golf. It’s a tough job these days.

The summary process summons and complaint form is complicated to the layperson. It must be first served by a constable or sheriff on the tenant. Then, no less than 7 days after, it must be filed with the court by the “entry date,” which is always a Monday. The hearings are almost always on Thursday morning. Again, it’s best to have an experienced Massachusetts eviction attorney handle the legal paperwork.

Tenant Defenses and Counterclaims

Through the use of discovery requests, defenses and counterclaims, tenants in Massachusetts have ample legal means to delay and beat evictions. All tenants have a right to file “discovery” – formal requests for information and documents – from the landlord, which will automatically delay the hearing for two weeks. The tenant also may assert defenses and counterclaims against the landlord. These can range from improper notice or service, state Sanitary Code violations, no heat/hot water, failure to make repairs, retaliation, discrimination, and violations of the security deposit law—which carries triple damages and attorneys’ fees. (See my prior post on security deposits). Regardless of the merits of such claims, these defenses and counterclaims make the eviction process more complicated, time-consuming, and expensive.

Read my post on the Massachusetts State Sanitary Code — Everything A Landlord Wanted To Know But Was Afraid To Ask

Agreements for Judgment and Mediation

Eviction sessions are very busy. In some courts, there are over 100 cases stacked up on any one day and only one judge to hear them all. Accordingly, the courts will encourage parties to work out their differences on their own through mediation which is an informal sit-down between the parties to discuss ways to resolve the case. Some courts have housing specialists who can preside over the mediation session. Mediation is always non-binding so if no agreement can be reached you can proceed to a trial.

In the Housing Court, there are trained housing specialists who facilitate the mediation process. There are many advantages for landlords to mediation, and I almost always recommend giving it a try. The end result of a mediation is for the parties to sign an agreement for judgment. In a non-payment case, you can structure a payment plan and/or voluntary move-out. For a “cause” eviction, you can provide for a “last chance” agreement or move-out. The major benefit for landlords is that an agreement for judgment becomes a binding court order and the judge is supposed to enforce it upon proof of a violation. It also shows the judge that the landlord has been reasonable and accommodating. Experienced Massachusetts eviction attorneys will also make the tenants waive their rights to appeal and right to delay the case any further so as to avoid last minute requests for more time to vacate.

On the other hand, sometimes the situation is untenable and you have to go before the judge. Some judges hold a basic hearing, giving both sides the opportunity to speak. Some judges, particularly in the Housing Court, are more formal and require an actual trial with live witnesses and exhibits. I’ve had hearings last one minute and jury trials in eviction cases go on for days. But I’m always prepared to put on a case on for trial, as I always have my client present in court or on standby.

Appeals

Tenants in eviction cases do have a fairly robust right of appeal which can greatly delay resolution of the case. (A good reason in and of itself to do an agreement for judgment waiving appeal rights). However, in certain cases, the landlord can ask the court to impose an appeal bond so the tenant must pay rent into court to proceed with the appeal. Most tenants do not have the financial ability to do that, so that will terminate the appeal.

If you have any questions or need assistance with a Massachusetts summary process eviction, please contact me via email at [email protected] or by phone at 508-620-5352.

__________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts summary process & eviction attorney who has handled over 2,000 eviction cases all across Massachusetts. For help with a landlord tenant matter, please email him at [email protected] or call him at 508-620-5352.

{ 30 comments }

SJC Expands Scope Of Tenant Protections In Foreclosed Properties Act

by Rich Vetstein on September 12, 2011

in Fannie Mae, Foreclosure, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis

FNMA v. Nunez: Tenant Foreclosure Act Applied Retroactively

On September 6, 2011, in Federal National Mortgage Association v. Nunez (embedded below), the Supreme Judicial Court considered for the first time the 13-month-old “Tenant Protections In Foreclosed Properties” Act which protects tenants living in foreclosed properties from eviction in certain circumstances. The issue was whether the Act applied retroactively, and the court answered “yes,” applying it “to protect all residential tenants on foreclosed properties who, on or after August 7, 2010, had yet to vacate or be removed from the premises by an eviction, even where the owner purchased the property before the act’s effective date, and initiated a summary process action before that date.”

Summary Of Act

The Act, passed in August 2010 and now codified in a new Mass. General Laws Chapter 186A, bans institutional lenders (not private parties) who own foreclosed properties from evicting residential tenants without “just cause.” What this means in plain English is that foreclosing lenders such as Fannie Mae cannot evict tenants of foreclosed properties unless they stop paying rent or commit serious lease violations such as illegal activity on the premises.

Loophole: Private Purchasers

There is a huge loophole in the Act however. It does not apply to private individuals who purchase properties at foreclosure. They are free to evict tenants for any reason. But, they must provide tenants with at least 90 day notice to move, and the tenant retains the right to ask for more time to leave in any eviction legal proceeding.

Impact: Slow Down In Sales of Foreclosed Properties

The impact of this ruling will be to expand the number of tenants who will be protected from eviction when their apartments fall into foreclosure. It will also slow down the pace of selling off REO and foreclosed properties to individual owners and investors who will now inherit tenants with expanded occupancy rights in foreclosed properties.

_______________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate litigation attorney who’s handled over 500 eviction cases in the District and Housing Courts. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts landlord-tenant dispute.

 

 

FNMA v. Nunez

{ 0 comments }

SJC Rules That Housing Court May Hear Challenges To Foreclosures

by Rich Vetstein on August 12, 2011

in Foreclosure, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Title Defects

Battle Over Invalid Foreclosures May Shift To Evictions In Housing Courts

In the closely watched case of Bank of New York v. Bailey (embedded below), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled on August 4, 2011 that the Housing Court may hear a homeowner’s challenge that a foreclosing lender failed to conduct a foreclosure sale in accordance with state law and under the now seminal U.S. Bank v. Ibanez decision. Previous to this decision, foreclosing lenders and their attorneys were quite successful in evicting homeowners even where there were defects in the foreclosures.

A Subprime Eviction

KC Bailey obtained a mortgage in 2005, which appears to have been of the sub-prime vintage (America’s Wholesale Lender), on his home in Mattapan. Merely two years later, he defaulted, and the lender commenced foreclosure proceedings. Bailey claimed that the lender never provided him with any notice of the foreclosure, and he first learned about it when an eviction notice was duct taped to his fence. The lender started an eviction in the Boston Housing Court. Bailey defended on the basis of the alleged defective notice. The Housing Court judge ruled in favor of the lender, and the case went up to the SJC.

Ruling: Housing Court May Hear Foreclosure Challenge

The SJC first ruled, in a case of first impression, that the Housing Court had jurisdiction to consider whether the lender had properly completed the foreclosure sale and provided adequate notice to Bailey. The court noted that such a challenged was “long-standing.” Next, the Court ruled that all foreclosing lenders seeking eviction must show that it has completed the foreclosure sale in full compliance with state law. This is a change in prior practice as lenders would typically submit the foreclosure deed as evidence of good title and ownership without additional investigation.

Impact: More Difficult To Evict, But More Opportunity For Loan Mods

This decision is going to make it more difficult and expensive to evict foreclosed homeowners and get these properties off lenders’ books. On the positive side, it may give homeowners more leverage to negotiate loan modifications to enable them to stay in their homes and recover from financial distress. Evictions based on faulty foreclosures will be nearly impossible to complete and could potentially drag on for months if not years.

This decision will also have a substantial impact on the already over-burdened Housing Court system. If you have ever been to the Thursday summary process session at Boston or Worcester Housing Court, it’s akin to a refugee camp, with hundreds of cases lined up and families facing homelessness. It’s very sad. I’m sure the judges will push lenders and homeowners dealing with faulty foreclosures to resolve their differences out of court, or tell them to wait in back of the line for trial assignment.

Bank of New York v. Bailey

{ 1 comment }

First Snow Brings Questions On Change In Snow Removal Law

by Rich Vetstein on December 21, 2010

in Condominium Law, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Premises Liability, Safety

Ice-slip-drinkProperty Owners Need To Clear Snow & Ice After Storms

As I was slipping and sliding in the first real snow yesterday, this blog got a spike in traffic about Massachusetts snow removal law. Back when we were sunning in 80 degree weather, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overruled 125 years of snow removal law and announced a new rule of law that all Massachusetts property owners are legally responsible for the removal of snow and ice from their property. The old rule was that owners could leave natural accumulations of snow and ice intact and escape liability for slip and falls. No longer.

The case is Papadopoulos v. Target Corp. and can be read here. You can read my prior post on the case here.

Impact To Massachusetts Property Owners: Shovel Early & Often

What this change in Massachusetts snow removal law means for all property owners, both residential and commercial, is that they need to be extra vigilant after snow and ice storms, and clear areas in which the public and visitors have access–early and often. Whether a property owner takes reasonable steps in removing snow and ice will be determined by judges, juries and later cases on an individual basis. If you cannot clear the snow and ice, hire a private company to do it.

Important: speak with your insurance agent about increasing the limits of your liability coverage. I recommend Nadine Heaps at Purple Ink Insurance out of Ashland, MA.

Read More: Shoveling Ruling May Face First Test–Boston Globe (12.25.10).

{ 11 comments }

The Great Condominium Smoke-Out: Associations Enacting Anti-Smoking Bans

by Rich Vetstein on November 23, 2010

in Condominium Law, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Safety

A Man’s Condo Unit May Not Be His Castle For Smoking…

As anti-smoking restrictions become increasingly widespread, smokers find the last place they can indulge freely is within the confines of their home. However, the saying that a man’s home is his castle may not extend to condominiums where condo associations are enacting bans against smoking in common areas and even individual units.

In Chicago, the 1418 N. Lake Shore Drive Condominium Association recently banned smoking in interior common areas and inside the units. Smoking is permitted in a unit, however, if it is restricted to a single room that has been equipped with an association-approved, self-contained air-treatment system. Last year, a Cape Cod condominium considered a smoking ban in living areas.

Smokers will surely cry foul over this, but condominiums are a special kind of property. As Massachusetts courts have ruled, “central to the concept of condominium ownership is the principle that each owner, in exchange for the benefits of association with other owners, must give up a certain degree of freedom of choice which he might otherwise enjoy in separate, privately owned property.” Condominium trustees are empowered to enact rules that are “reasonably related to the promotion of the health, happiness and peace of mind of the unit owners.”

With smoking, however, the issue become quite cloudy. Without legal precedent that smoking constitutes a private nuisance – which would give associations a green light to enact indoor smoking bans – an anti-smoking rule which is not made into a formal condominium document amendment may not be enforceable. Recorded amendments typically require 75% unit owner approval, and also give prospective buyers fair warning before they decide to buy a unit. For those associations that can muster a 75% vote, they may on their way to smoke free living bliss…

{ 2 comments }

Massachusetts Security Deposit and Last Month’s Rent Law: Traps For The Unwary Landlord

by Rich Vetstein on August 10, 2010

in Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law

Rent Deposits: To Take Or Not To Take?

With the students invading Boston any minute now, it’s a good idea to review last month’s rent and security deposits – one of the most heavily regulated aspects of Massachusetts landlord-tenant law and fraught with pitfalls and penalties for the unwary, careless landlord. In my experience, landlords who handle rent deposits correctly are the exception, rather than the norm.

If you don’t really know the rules for handling last month’s and security deposits, DON’T TAKE THEM. The reason is that any misstep, however innocent, under the complex Massachusetts last month’s rent and security deposit law can subject a landlord to far greater liability than the deposit, including penalties up to triple the amount of the deposit and payment of the tenant’s attorneys’ fees.

Read More: Landlord Prevented From Evicting Tenant Over $3.26 In Interest

If a deposit is necessary, take a last month’s deposit, the requirements of which are less strict than security deposits. Here is an overview of the security deposit law:

Requirements For Holding A Security Deposit

The following steps must be followed when a landlord holds a security deposit:

  1. When the deposit is tendered, the landlord must give the tenant a written receipt which provides:
    • the amount of the deposit
    • the name of the landlord/agent
    • the date of receipt
    • the property address.
  2. Within 30 days of the money being deposited, the landlord must provide the tenant with a receipt identifying the bank where the deposit is held, the amount and account number.
  3. Within 10 days after the tenancy begins, the landlord must provide the tenant with a written “statement of condition” of the premises detailing its condition and any damage with a required disclosure statement;
  4. The tenant has an opportunity to note any other damage to the premises, and the landlord must agree or disagree with the final statement of condition and provide it to the tenant.
  5. The security deposit must be held in a separate interest bearing account in a Massachusetts  financial institution protected from the landlord’s creditors.
  6. The landlord must pay the tenant interest on the security deposit annually if held for more than one year.
  7. The security deposit may only be used to reimburse the landlord for unpaid rent, reasonable damage to the unit or unpaid tax increases if part of the lease. Security deposits cannot be used for general eviction costs or attorneys’ fees. Within 30 days of the tenant’s leaving, the landlord must return the deposit plus any unpaid interest or provide a sworn, itemized list of deductions for damage with estimates for the work. Only then can the landlord retain the security deposit.

What Do I Do If A Tenant Claims I Violated The Security Deposit?

First, talk with the tenant about the situation. Most issues can be resolved amicably, usually with the return of the deposit with interest. That’s always my advice to landlords. If that doesn’t work, call me.

____________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts residential landlord – tenant attorney. You can contact him at [email protected].

{ 11 comments }

Massachusetts Property Owners Now Have Legal Responsibility To Shovel and Treat Snow and Ice

by Rich Vetstein on July 28, 2010

in Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Premises Liability, Safety

Ice-slip-drink

High Court Overrules 100 Years of Massachusetts Snow Removal Law

In a much anticipated ruling, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overruled 125 years of legal precedent and announced a new rule of law that all Massachusetts property owners can be held legally responsible for failing to remove snow and ice from their property. The case is Papadopoulos v. Target Corp. and can be read here.

Rejecting the old common law rule that property owners could simply leave naturally accumulated snow and ice untreated and escape liability, the SJC held that all Massachusetts property owners must remove or treat snow and ice like any other dangerous condition on property. Justice Ralph Gants reasoned that “is not reasonable for a property owner to leave snow or ice on a walkway where it is reasonable to expect that a hardy New England visitor would choose to risk crossing the snow or ice, rather than turn back or attempt an equally or more perilous walk around it.’’

Also check out my newest and most updated post (as of 2/5/15): Massachusetts Snow Removal Law Update

I am a landlord. How long do I have to shovel snow and ice on my rental property?

There is no clear cut answer to this question, and juries and courts will ultimately decide what is reasonable. The City of Boston’s policy is to give businesses 3 hours to clean snow, and 6 hours to residents. In Worcester, it’s 12 hours to clear snow. Those are the minimums. As with any dangerous condition, my advice is to shovel and treat snow and ice early and often. Even a thin coating of black ice can cause someone to slip and fall and seriously hurt themselves. (Admit it if you’ve dumped on your rear end like I have!). If you are an out-of-town landlord, you must hire someone to shovel your snow.

Am I required to shovel the public sidewalk in front of my house/business after a storm?

In most Massachusetts towns and cities, the answer is yes, and municipalities have the power to enact such bylaws and fine scofflaws. Check your local town ordinances for guidance. The cities of Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Newton, Lynn, and Worcester (among others) all require property owners and businesses to clear municipal sidewalks in front of their residences or businesses. Fines are assessed against non-compliance. The City of Boston mandates clean sidewalks within 6 hours of a storm; Worcester is 12 hours. In Somerville, for example, if snow ceases to fall after sunrise (during daylight hours), property owners must shovel sidewalks by 10 p.m, and if snow ceases to fall after sunset (overnight), property owners must shovel sidewalks by 10 a.m. You can also be fined for shoveling snow onto the street, blocking a curb cut or putting snow on municipal owned property.

In some more residential towns, the local DPW will clear the sidewalks, but the default rule is that property owners are generally responsible for clearing their own sidewalks and driveways.

My lease states that the tenant is responsible for snow shoveling. Is that legal and will that protect me from liability?

Landlords have the primary responsibility for snow removal at rental property. Under the State Sanitary Code, property owners/landlords must keep all means of egress free from obstruction. As for the removal of snow and ice, the Code provides that the landlord shall maintain all means of egress at all times in a safe, operable condition and shall keep all exterior stairways, fire escapes, egress balconies and bridges free of snow and ice. A landlord may require the tenant be responsible for snow and ice remove in a lease provision only where a dwelling has an independent means of egress, not shared with other occupants, and a written lease provides for same. Otherwise, landlords are responsible for snow and ice removal.

Even if the tenant is responsible for snow removal under a legal lease provision, the landlord could still face personal injury liability for slip and falls on snow and ice under the Target ruling.  A person who is injured due to untreated snow or ice will likely sue both the property owner and the tenant. The property owner must ultimately ensure that the property is safe for visitors.

Will my homeowner’s or CGL insurance policy cover any injuries from slip and fall on snow/ice?

Yes, usually. The standard Massachusetts homeowners insurance policy and commercial general liability insurance policy (CGL) will have liability coverage for slip and falls on property. Make sure you have ample liability coverage of at least $500,000 to 1 Million. (You can never have enough insurance!). As with any insurance question, it’s best to contact your personal insurance agent.

I’m just a regular ol’ homeowner. What if the mailman or delivery person slips on my walkway?

You may be liable if you left dangerous snow and ice on your walkway. The new law applies to every property owner in Massachusetts, not just landlords. Get some Ice-melt and sand and spread on your walkway. If it re-freezes overnight into black ice, you will remain liable. Get back out there and spread Ice-melt!

If you have additional questions, please ask them in the comment forms below!

Resources: Mass.Gov Law About Snow and Ice, City of Cambridge Snow Removal Policy, City of Boston Know Snow Fact Page

Read More: Shoveling Ruling May Face First Test–Boston Globe (12.25.10).

_______________________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts Real Estate Litigation Attorney who has litigated hundreds of cases in the Massachusetts Land and Superior Courts. For further information you can contact him at [email protected].

{ 90 comments }

The Students Are Coming, The Students Are Coming! A Mini-Review Of Massachusetts Landlord Tenant Rental Law, Part 1.

by Rich Vetstein on July 20, 2010

in Housing Discrimination, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Rental Housing

In a few weeks, the *quiet* streets of Allston, Brighton, Cambridge, Boston and other Massachusetts tenant friendly cities will turn into the zoo that is known as student moving week. So it’s time to review frequently asked questions for Massachusetts landlord tenant rental law.

Screening Prospective Tenants

Landlords can legally ask about a tenant’s income, current employment, prior landlord references, credit history, and criminal history. Your rental application should include a full release of all credit history and CORI (Criminal Offender Registry Information).  Use CORI information with a great deal of caution, however, and offer the tenant an opportunity to explain any issues. Landlords should also check the Sex Offender Registry to ascertain whether a potential tenant could be a safety risk to others nearby. Use the rental application and other forms from the Greater Boston Real Estate Board.

Under Massachusetts discrimination laws, a landlord cannot refuse to rent to a tenant on the basis of the tenant’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, age, marital status, religion, military/veteran status, disability, receipt of public assistance, and children. It’s best to stay away from asking about these topics.

The Boston Undergraduate Rule

Update: Dec. 2011:  Renting To 4 or More College Students Considered Illegal Lodging House. Click Here to Read More.

Under a two year old Boston zoning ordinance, no more than four (4) full time undergraduate students may live together in a single apartment.  The rule does not apply to graduate students or fraternity/sorority houses. The fines for violating this ordinance are stiff; don’t do it.

While on this topic, landlords should ensure that all roommates are signatories to the lease and are “jointly and severally” liable for rent. That way, if one tenant skips out, the remaining tenants remain liable for the full rent.

Students often create problems for landlords. Meet with students personally before signing the lease and firmly explain a “no tolerance” policy against excessive noise, parties and misbehavior. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure here.

Pets

Subject to some restrictions, landlords may prohibit pets altogether or use reasonable rules to control them on rental property. Under federal law, a landlord cannot prohibit a qualified disabled tenant from using a service pet such as a seeing eye dog. There are also restrictions on prohibiting household pets for federally subsidized elderly and disabled housing project.

More topics, including last month/security deposits and illegal lease clauses, to follow next!

{ 0 comments }

Massachusetts Senate Passes Foreclosure Protection, Homestead Update, and Consumer Protection Bills

by Rich Vetstein on May 5, 2010

in Foreclosure, Homestead, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis

Update (June 28, 2010): The bill is heading up to Gov. Patrick’s office for approval.

The Massachusetts Senate recently passed wide-ranging legislation that updates the homestead law, protects tenants in foreclosed properties from arbitrary evictions, criminalizes mortgage fraud and certain unsolicited loans. The legislation, part of a series of consumer protection bills that passed the Senate, was approved unanimously.

Metrowest Senator Karen Spilka, who spearheaded the changes, writes about them on her blog (and she has a Facebook Page!).

Foreclosure Bill

  • Tenants in foreclosed buildings can only be evicted for just cause, or if the building is purchased by a third party. Also, a lender cannot evict a tenant for failure to pay rent unless it has posted and delivered a written notice including critical information, including a contact number for the new owner. This does not prohibit a lender from evicting tenants for other valid reasons, such as interfering with the quiet enjoyment of other tenants, using a unit for illegal purposes, or refusing to allow the lender to enter the unit to make repairs.
  • For homeowners, the legislation temporarily extends the 90-day right to cure period, enacted by the legislature in 2007, to 150 days. The 2007 law gave homeowners 90 days to come up with past due payments on their mortgage, before the lender could require full payment of unpaid balance. This was intended as a cooling off period for the lender and homeowner to work out a new payment plan to avoid foreclosure.
  • Bill requires at least one meeting or telephone conversation between the homeowner and the lender to discuss a commercially reasonable alternative to foreclosure. The lender’s representative must have the authority to agree to the revised terms. The right to cure period can be reduced from 150 days to 90 days if the lender makes a good faith effort to negotiate a commercially reasonable alternative to foreclosure.
  • Allows the 150-day right to cure to be granted once every 3 years; currently, the 90-day right to cure is only available once every 5 years.
  • Creates a 2-year pilot program within the Division of Banks that requires all property owners, including lenders, trustees, and service companies, to register and maintain vacant and/or foreclosing properties in the Commonwealth.

Coverage on this bill from the Boston Globe can be found here.

Homestead Law Update

  • Updates the homestead law to protect up to $500,000 of a home’s value. It also includes unsecured debts, such as credit card debt, that were incurred before the homestead was filed.
  • Extending homestead protection to manufactured homes, and multifamily properties of up to 4 units.
  • Requiring homeowners with more than one property to file a declaration, signed under the penalty of perjury, of which dwelling is their primary residence and therefore eligible for homestead protection to avoid fraud.
  • Clarifying that the proceeds of fire/casualty insurance or sales/takings are protected from creditors. Fire/casualty proceeds are protected until re-occupancy; a homestead is declared on new home; or for 2 years after the date of the fire/casualty.
  • Protecting the proceeds from sales or taking until a new homestead is declared or for 1 year, whichever occurs first.
  • Allowing trustees of trusts to file homestead declarations on behalf of trust beneficiaries who reside in the property as their principal place of residence.
  • Creates an automatic homestead of $125,000 for all homeowners.

Other Consumer Protection Provisions

  • As advocated by the Attorney General, the bill would criminalize residential mortgage fraud.
  • Prohibits financial institutions and lenders from sending consumers unsolicited loans which are a negotiable check, money order, draft or other instrument that may be used to unknowingly activate a loan that was not solicited by the consumer.  10 day right of rescission on these loan products.

The three bills now move to the House of Representatives for further action.

The homestead law update is long-awaited and much needed. I wrote about it in the Fall here.

The foreclosure bill is quite a victory for tenant and distressed property owner advocates.

// //

//

{ 5 comments }

Massachusetts Lead Paint Law Advisory: Family Unfriendly Policies Can Get Landlords Into Big Trouble

by Rich Vetstein on February 16, 2010

in Condominium Law, Landlord Tenant Law, Lead Paint, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Realtors, Rental Housing, Safety

peeling-paint.jpgBreaking News (8/10/10): Two Local Real Estate Firms Fined By Mass. Attorney General For Lead Paint Housing Discrimination

My Boston.com fellow blogger, buyer’s agent Rona Fischman, has fielded several questions recently regarding the Massachusetts Lead Paint Law. Prospective renters have called apartment listings only to be hung up on abruptly with a “It’s not deleaded!” if they hear a child in the background or if they answer truthfully about having children. Mothers have received termination notices when the landlord discovers they are pregnant – usually of course for tenancies at will. Finally, there is a listing this week in a local paper for an owner occupied 2 family rental which states “Unit Not Deleaded” right in the ad.

The short answer is these are all likely violations of the Massachusetts Lead Paint Law, and could expose the offending landlords to stiff penalties and damages.

Under the Massachusetts Lead Paint Law, whenever a child under six years of age comes to live in a rental property, the property owner has a responsibility to discover whether there is any lead paint on the property and to de-lead to protect the young children living there. A property owner or real estate agent cannot get around the legal requirements to disclose information about known lead hazards simply by refusing to rent to families with young children. They also cannot refuse to renew the lease of a pregnant woman or a family with young children just because a property may contain lead hazards. And property owners cannot refuse to rent simply because they do not want to spend the money to de-lead the property. Any of these acts is a violation of the Lead Law, the Consumer Protection Act, and various Massachusetts anti-discrimination statutes that can have serious penalties for a property owner or real estate agent.

As the stories above show, landlords routinely flaunt, or are just plain ignorant of, the law. The issue becomes what to do about it and is it worth the time and aggravation? I guess that depends on your situation. Certainly, if you are being threatened with a discriminatory eviction, your first step should be to contact the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) and your local Fair Housing Commission. In a recent case, the MCAD hit a property owner with $25,000 in damages and fines for evicting a young family to avoid de-leading. Next consider hiring a housing discrimination attorney. If you are low on funds, the atMassachusetts Lead Paint Lawtorney may agree to take the case on a contingency because violations of the lead paint law and discrimination laws provide for the reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and enhanced damages.

As for the “Unit Not Deleaded” ad, while may be truthful, it might as well read “Children Under 6 Not Wanted.” I would advise a landlord to avoid this sort of indirect discriminatory preference.

Lastly, the law is conflicting regarding owner occupied two family homes.  Chapter 151B, the state anti-discrimination law, exempts owner occupied two family homes from the prohibition of discrimination against children. However, there is no such exemption written into the lead paint law. So if a child is born into a owner occupied 2 family, it must be de-leaded. Vacation/recreational rents and short term (31 days or less) rentals are also exempt from the lead paint law.

As always, contact me, Attorney Richard Vetstein with any questions.

{ 2 comments }

Massachusetts Landlords And Realtors Settle Discriminatory Housing Practices With Attorney General

by Rich Vetstein on October 29, 2009

in Housing Discrimination, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Rental Housing

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley today announced that her office has settled 20 cases against landlords and real estate agents accused of violating state anti-discrimination laws across Massachusetts. The companies allegedly made discriminatory statements in online rental advertisements on Craigslist.org which stated “no children” or “no Section 8.” Section 8 is a rental subsidy program of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Under Massachusetts law, landlords and realtors cannot refuse to rent to families with children under the lead paint law or because someone receives a housing subsidy to aid in paying their rent. Both the settlements and lawsuits came as part of a statewide investigation into reports of widespread discriminatory internet advertising. The case involved properties in Suffolk, Middlesex, Norfolk, Essex, Bristol, Plymouth, and Hampden counties.

Housing discrimination is a serious problem in Massachusetts. Particularly as more families face tough financial times and have no choice but to rent, landlords and real estate professionals must recognize that the rental market is a regulated industry and compliance with our anti-discrimination laws is among their most important obligations, Coakley said. While we hope that this enforcement initiative will have a deterrent effect, our office will continue to monitor Craigslist and take action against persons and entities that violate the law.

The property owners and real estate agents are collectively required to pay Massachusetts $18,250 with $8,750 suspended pending compliance with the agreements. They must also attend trainings on state and federal fair housing laws and remove lead paint hazards from rental units. The defendants are also required by the agreement to advertise any future rental property as “Equal Housing Opportunity” properties, to maintain a record of rental applicants submitted by prospective tenants and to to report all discrimination complaints received to the attorney general’s office. The defendants will also place more than 60 postings on Craigslist to inform the website’s uses that the attorney general monitors the site for discriminatory advertising and that it is against Massachusetts law to state a discriminatory preference against families with children or against recipients of housing assistance subsidies.

We’ll have to file this one under “I told you so!” In my prior post, Massachusetts Landlord Tenant Law: A Legal Refresher Course For Landlords, I warned landlords about the consequences of an illegal policy of refusing to rent to families with children or to tenants receiving federal or state rent subsidies. I’m disappointed these landlords are apparently not avid readers of the Massachusetts Real Estate Law Blog!

{ 0 comments }

A Quick Question & Answer Session On Massachusetts Condominium Law And Liability Issues

by Rich Vetstein on October 28, 2009

in Condominium Law, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Rental Housing

Rona Fischman, a buyer’s agent and co-author of Boston.com’s Real Estate Now Blog asked me to answer a couple of questions regarding condominiums on her Boston.com blog which I’ve reprinted here:

Is an individual unit owner liable if someone gets hurt in the condominium’s common areas?

The answer is most likely not. This is good lead in to the concept of “common areas.” When someone buys a condominium unit, they also obtain an undivided share of the condominium’s common areas and facilities. Common areas typically include obvious things such as building entrances and exits, lobbies, interior stairways, pools and workout rooms. They also include not so obvious areas such as the space between adjoining units, telecommunication wires, and the roof. As outlined in the “master deed,” each unit owner “owns” an undivided share (expressed as a percentage) of all the common areas. But the condominium association has responsibility over managing and maintaining the common areas. Recognizing that unit owners have very little control over common areas, the Massachusetts Condominium Act provides that only the condominium association can be sued for claims related to common areas. The condominium association should have a master liability insurance policy in place in case anyone gets injured on common area property. If however, the claim is so substantial that all common funds, property and insurance proceeds have been exhausted to pay the claim, individual unit owners could be held liable for the balance due, if any, but only up to their respective percentage interest in the condominium. Now, if your unit has a private deck or porch (which is not a common area) with a faulty railing, you could be held responsible if someone fell. For all these reasons, unit owners should absolutely obtain an “HO-6” policy for their own liability and an umbrella policy on top of that.

I own a condominium unit and rent it out to students. Am I responsible for my tenant’s noise and disturbance problems?

The answer is yes. While a precise response would depend on the provisions of the condominium’s bylaws, typically, a unit owner is responsible for the actions of tenants. Most often, a condominium’s bylaws and house rules are binding on unit owners, resident family members and tenants. If a tenant violates a house rule — by making excessive noise — the unit owner is responsible for all consequences. The condominium association can require the unit owner to evict the tenant; if the unit owner fails or refuses, the condominium association may be able to take separate legal action against the owner and levy stiff fines. If the bylaws provide, the unit owner may be responsible for reimbursing the condo for legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with his tenant’s eviction. Disgruntled unit owners can also pursue “nuisance” claims against unit owners who rent to noisy tenants. This is a tricky issue with an absentee unit owner who cannot verify the nature of the complaints. Surely, however, renting to noisy tenants will earn you no favors with your fellow unit owners.

Condominium Living 101

My advice to folks considering purchasing a condominium is to recognize that you are buying into a rather unique form of ownership and community. You will be giving up certain rights taken for granted in del bocasingle family dwelling life — the right to absolute silence, privacy, and control over all aspects of the property — in exchange for perhaps more amenities, convenience, less maintenance, and better location and price. In some cases, you will also be entering into the uniquely democratic (or in some condos, totalitarian) form of governance, rife with politics, fighting and name-calling–think that Seinfeld episode down at the Del Boca Vista Condos. But seriously, the majority of condominiums are well run. But before you buy, it’s imperative that you and your real estate attorney thoroughly review the condominium documents and budget to ensure you’re not buying into a Seinfeld-esque nightmare.

{ 5 comments }

Residential Landlord’s Implied Warranty Of Habitability Extended To Guests Of Tenants

by Rich Vetstein on September 23, 2009

in Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Rental Housing

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled last week that a landlord was liable for breaching the implied warranty of habitability when a tenant’s guest seriously injured himself falling from a defective porch. The case is Scott v. Garfield, and can be found here.

What’s the Implied Warranty of Habitability?

The implied warranty of habitability is a multi-faceted legal concept that encompasses contract and tort principles, as well as the State building and sanitary codes. It imposes a legal duty on a residential landlord, in the form of an implied agreement, to ensure that a rental unit complies with the State building and sanitary codes throughout the term of the lease. If a tenant is injured due to the premises being in violation of code, the landlord can be held liable under the implied warranty of habitability. The implied warranty cannot be waived by a lease provision.

The Decision: Extending the Doctrine

In Scott v. Garfield, the SJC extended the reach of the doctrine from tenants to the guests and lawful visitors of any tenant. The injured victim in the Scott case was a friend of the tenant helping out with a move when a defective second story porch railing gave way, sending him falling and seriously injuring his shoulder. The Court upheld a $450,000 jury verdict in the victim’s favor. The Court reasoned:

Our conclusion that lawful visitors, like tenants, may recover for personal injuries caused by breach of the implied warranty of habitability rests, in part, on the expectation that a tenant might invite a guest into his home, and the concomitant expectation that the tenant’s home must be safe for a guest to visit — which together go to the very heart of the landlord’s contractual obligation to deliver and maintain habitable premises that comply with the building and sanitary codes.

OK, So What?

Whether the implied warranty of habitability is in play in a personal injury case makes a huge difference. Personal injury attorneys love the implied warranty of habitability because the defense of comparative negligence is unavailable, unlike a straight-forward claim for negligence. The comparative negligence defense enables a jury to attribute fault to each party in a personal injury case and reduce liability accordingly. This was a factor in the Scott case as the injured guest had been drinking a few beers during the move, and the jury found him 20% at fault, which would have reduced his verdict by $90,000. (How a couple beers impacted the rotting porch is beyond me, I guess he leaned to hard–juries never cease to amaze me). The verdict remained intact, however, because the jury also found that the landlord had violated the implied warranty of habitability. Thus, in cases where the implied warranty is in play, landlords have one hand tied behind their backs as they can’t point the finger at the plaintiff.

Take-Away: Check Your Porches and Your Liability Insurance

This case is yet another harsh reminder that all landlords must not only check their porches, stairways and railing for defects, but procure general liability insurance with sufficient coverage on rental property. I recommend at least $1 Million/person $2 Million/aggregate which would have covered this verdict entirely, plus paid for the attorneys. Another way to limit risk is to get title to residential rental property out of landlords’ personal names and into a new limited liability company or other corporate entity (not a nominee trust).

This decision is not a surprise in light of the court’s prior decisions eliminating old common law rules of liability for different types of people on property (i.e., tenants, guests, invitees, etc.–notably, trespassers remain a category not entitled to added protection). Given the significance of the case and the fact that it went up to the SJC, the landlord in Scott had liability insurance which covered this verdict and the appeal. But if you’re an uninsured landlord on the wrong side of one of these cases, you got a big check to write or a bankruptcy attorney to see.

As always, email me at [email protected] with any questions.

{ 5 comments }

Newly Formed Company Liable For $1.2M In Back Rent Under Corporate Successor Liability Theory

by Rich Vetstein on September 14, 2009

in Commercial Leasing, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law

Apparently for the first time, a Massachusetts trial judge has used a newly decided corporate successor liability theory to hold a newly formed company responsible for the debts of its predecessor, yielding a $2 million judgment for back rent and interest. The plaintiff in the case, Renaissance Worldwide, had leased space to Sitara Networks, a voice-over-Internet (VOIP) company, in a Waltham building. Sitara arranged for a creditor to foreclose on its assets and then bought them back, reopening as a new entity, Converged Access. Converged claimed that it should not be responsible for the hundreds of thousands of dollars in back rent and interest owed by Sitara.

Superior Court Judge Bruce R. Henry said “not so fast,” and ruled that Sitara’s plan to reemerge as Converged Access was improperly designed to shed the company’s unsecured debt, scrubbing the books clean with the transaction. He ordered Converged Access to pay a whopping $1.2 million in back rent plus $800,000 in interest and attorneys’ fees. Judge Henry’s ruling is reportedly the first major decision relying on a year old Milliken decision from the Massachusetts highest court on corporate successor liability. The judge wrote:

“That plan causes me the same concerns as did the similar plan of the defendant in the Milliken case,” Henry wrote. “As the Supreme Judicial Court found in Milliken, ‘Notwithstanding our respect for the integrity of corporate structures, we are troubled by the notion that by merely changing its form, without significantly changing its substance, a single corporation can wholly shed its debts to unsecured creditors, continue its business operations with an eye toward returning to profitability, and have no further obligation to pay such creditors.'”

A Young Company Pursues VOIP Technology But Runs Into Trouble

Sitara, the young company was pursuing voice-over-Internet protocol technology – or VoIP – which essentially allows phone service to work over the Internet. In April 2002, Sitara stopped paying its rent and began talking to Renaissance, the landlord, about renegotiating the lease, but the two never reached a revised agreement. Sitara failed to pay the rent over the next 15 months, accumulating a $1.2 million debt. (Why the landlord let the rent accrue this much is beyond me).

Meanwhile, it owed Lighthouse Capital Partners, a secured creditor, $1.1 million. In 2004, Sitara began working with Argus Management Corp., a consulting firm that specializes in helping distressed companies. Argus tried to negotiate a reduced rent, but the two sides never agreed to terms. In April 2004, one of Sitara’s founders, Malik Khan, sent an e-mail to some colleagues discussing the rent negotiations with Renaissance and outlining several options, including selling the company to Lighthouse and buying the assets back. “We hand the keys to Lighthouse and then purchase the assets back from them,” he wrote. “We have spent time working this last option out with Argus, who have much more experience at this than we do. … Financially, this is a better deal for all of us but more complicated.” In a later e-mail to an investor, Khan spelled out the plan in greater detail: Lighthouse would take over the assets and a new company would buy them, getting “Sitara’s current business, assets, IP, brand names, trade marks and copyrights, with no debt on its balance sheet.” And he noted that, if done “expeditiously,” there would be “a seamless transition from employees, customers and the market, with minimal disruption to business.”

Not So Fast Says The Judge

After several years of litigation, the Judge ruled in a jury waived trial that the plan “engineered by Khan with assistance from Argus and the cooperation of Lighthouse was designed to permit Sitara to continue its business, albeit with a new name, and to shed its unsecured debt.” He ordered the defendants to pay $1.2 million in rent plus roughly $800,000 in interest, as well as attorneys’ fees, which have not yet been calculated.

Take Away

The take-away from this case is think twice before you engage in an end-game corporate foreclosure strategy under which a new related corporate entity is formed to “cleanse” the debts of the predecessor insolvent company. This applies not only in the real estate leasing context but for all types of corporate debt situations. With the economy still recovering, I would expect to see more of these “loan-to-own” successor liability cases as companies squeezed by the credit crunch look to get rid of debt while avoiding the longer, more expensive bankruptcy process. There is still much distressed corporate debt out there and otherwise sound companies that are victims of the credit crisis.

I’ve been waiting for an opportunity to write about commercial leasing and this new case which just came down provided a great opportunity. The case, Renaissance Worldwide Inc. v. Converged Access Inc., can be read here.

{ 1 comment }

Massachusetts Security Deposit Law: To Take A Security Deposit Or Not To Take One, That Is The Question.

by Rich Vetstein on August 5, 2009

in Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Rental Housing

images-9My last post on this blog and on Boston.com on Massachusetts landlord-tenant law spawned many questions on the Massachusetts security deposit law.  So, I decided to go into more detail about the topic.

Massachusetts Security Deposits–An Overview

Last month’s rent and security deposits are one of the most heavily regulated aspects of Massachusetts landlord-tenant law and are fraught with pitfalls and penalties for the unwary, careless landlord. Any misstep, however innocent, under the complex Massachusetts last month’s rent and security deposit law can subject a landlord to far greater liability than the deposit, including penalties up to triple the amount of the deposit and payment of the tenant’s attorneys’ fees. This is why I advise landlords not to require security deposits. If a deposit is necessary, take a last month’s deposit, the requirements of which are less strict than security deposits. If landlords insist on taking a security deposit, they must follow the law to the letter.

Requirements For Holding A Security Deposit

The following steps must be followed when a landlord holds a security deposit:

  1. When the deposit is tendered, the landlord must give the tenant a written receipt which provides:
    • the amount of the deposit
    • the name of the landlord/agent
    • the date of receipt
    • the property address.
  2. Within 30 days of the money being deposited, the landlord must provide the tenant with a receipt identifying the bank where the deposit is held, the amount and account number.
  3. Within 10 days after the tenancy begins, the landlord must provide the tenant with a written “statement of condition” of the premises detailing its condition and any damage with a required disclosure statement;
  4. The tenant has an opportunity to note any other damage to the premises, and the landlord must agree or disagree with the final statement of condition and provide it to the tenant.
  5. The security deposit must be held in a separate interest bearing account in a Massachusetts  financial institution protected from the landlord’s creditors.
  6. The landlord must pay the tenant interest on the security deposit annually if held for more than one year.
  7. The security deposit may only be used to reimburse the landlord for unpaid rent, reasonable damage to the unit or unpaid tax increases if part of the lease. Security deposits cannot be used for general eviction costs or attorneys’ fees. Within 30 days of the tenant’s leaving, the landlord must return the deposit plus any unpaid interest or provide a sworn, itemized list of deductions for damage with estimates for the work. Only then can the landlord retain the security deposit.

What Do I Do If The Landlord Mishandles My Security Deposit?

First, talk with the landlord about the situation and respectfully remind him or her of the law’s requirements. Many landlords will balk at the potential penalties for a security deposit violation, and most issues can be resolved amicably, usually with the return of the deposit with interest. If that doesn’t work, send the landlord a certified demand letter under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Chapter 93A. If that fails, take the landlord to Small Claims Court (the limit for these type of claims involving triple damages is $6,000) or contact an attorney.

{ 25 comments }

Massachusetts Landlord Tenant Law: A Legal Refresher Course For Landlords

by Rich Vetstein on July 28, 2009

in Housing Discrimination, Landlord Tenant Law, Leasing, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Rental Housing

istock_000008947813xsmall-300x223.jpgWith the impending influx of renters and students invading the Greater Boston area soon, let’s review some often asked questions concerning Massachusetts landlord tenant law to assist landlords in navigating the rental process.

Screening Prospective Tenants: What You Can and Cannot Ask?

Landlords can legally ask about a tenant’s income, current employment, prior landlord references, credit history, and criminal history. Your rental application should include a full release of all credit history and CORI (Criminal Offender Registry Information).  Use CORI information with a great deal of caution, however, and offer the tenant an opportunity to explain any issues. Landlords should also check the Sex Offender Registry as they can be held liable for renting to a known offender. Use the rental application and other forms from the Greater Boston Real Estate Board.

Under Massachusetts discrimination laws, a landlord cannot refuse to rent to a tenant on the basis of the tenant’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, age, marital status, religion, military/veteran status, disability, receipt of public assistance, and children. It’s best to stay away from asking about these topics.

Students, especially undergraduates, often create problems for landlords. Meet with students personally before signing the lease and firmly explain a “no tolerance” policy against excessive noise, parties and misbehavior.

Careful screening of tenants is far less expensive than the cost of evicting a problem tenant.

Security And Last Month’s Rent Deposits:  Should I Take One?

I advise landlords not to take security deposits because any misstep, however innocent, under the complex Massachusetts security deposit law can subject the landlord to far greater liability than the deposit. Among other requirements, the security deposit law provides:

  • a landlord must give the tenant a written receipt with information as to where the deposit is being held;
  • a landlord must hold a security deposit in a separate interest bearing account, and pay interest to the tenant yearly;
  • at the beginning of the tenancy, a landlord must provide the tenant with a written “statement of condition” of the rental unit detailing its condition and any damage;
  • the tenant may note any damage on the statement of condition
  • At the end of the tenancy, if the landlord desires to deduct repair costs from the security deposit, it must provide the tenant with written notification and copies of all estimates within 30 days of the tenant’s move-out.

Under the law, any slip-up on these requirements can subject the landlord to liability for 3 times the deposit plus the tenant’s attorneys’ fees. That’s why I advise my landlord clients that security deposits aren’t worth the money. If you need a deposit, take a last month’s deposit, the requirements of which can be found here in the Massachusetts last month’s deposit law.

Due to the high interest in security deposits, I wrote a full post on the topic.  Click on Massachusetts Security Deposits to view the article.

My Property Has Lead Paint, What Do I Do?

Under the Massachusetts Lead Paint Law, landlords (and real estate agents) must disclose to tenants the presence of known lead paint for property built before 1978. The property must be de-leaded if a child under 6 will live there. That means if a young couple moves into a unit, then has a baby, the landlord must de-lead the property. There is no way around de-leading other than risking a discrimination claim for not renting to families with small children which is illegal. (Of course, many landlords unlawfully reject families with children). Exposing children to lead paint puts a landlord at huge legal risk.  Financial aid and tax credits for de-leading are available to qualified property owners. For all Massachusetts rental property built before 1978, landlords must provide all tenants regardless of family composition with a Massachusetts Tenant Notification and Certification form, and all lead inspection reports and testing information, if available.

Can I Take A Finder’s Fee?

Only a licensed real estate broker can lawfully collect a finder’s fee for bringing together a landlord and a tenant.  Landlords who don’t work with brokers cannot charge a finder’s fee.

For more information, I recommend reading the Landlord’s Guide To the Law by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office.

_________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts landlord tenant and eviction attorney. Please contact him with any questions.

{ 9 comments }

Next Entries →