Landlord Tenant Law

Massachusetts Eviction Record Sealing Bill Signed Into Law

by Rich Vetstein on August 7, 2024

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

Tenants Given Presumptive Right to Seal Certain Eviction Records; Strict Rules Imposed On Credit Reporting Agencies; Landlords May Lose Invaluable Tenant Screening Tool

After years of lobbying, tenant advocates finally got a long-sought after eviction sealing measure through the Legislature and signed by Governor Healey as part of the recently passed Affordable Homes Act. Gov. Healey signed the measure into law on August 6. Under the bill, tenants will have the right to seal eviction records from public view (and landlord screening efforts) and get them removed from their credit reports. Additionally, credit reporting agencies will face strict rules and stiff penalties for disclosing sealed eviction records, which may put them out of the business of tenant screening altogether. Advocates say this will help tenants obtain housing without the chilling effect of an eviction record typically caused by economic hardship. Housing providers counter that eviction records are a crucial screening tool for landlords, and without it they may ask prospective renters to show a higher credit score or income in order to qualify. The key with this new measure is that in the vast majority of cases, the burden is on the tenant to initiate the court record sealing process – if they don’t do that, then the record will remain publicly available. But if they do file a petition to seal, it will typically be a very quick and easy process to get the record seal and removed from credit reports, and in many cases, the landlord will not even realize that it happened.

With a 270 waiting period, the law goes into effect on May 5, 2025. There are different court record sealing procedures for different types of eviction cases, outlined below, and the Housing and District Courts will need to create new forms under this law. I’ve posted the new bill at the end of this article.

No Fault Cases

No-fault cases are defined as evictions when a landlord terminates a tenancy at will or after a lease expires where no unpaid rent or material violation of a lease provision is claimed by the landlord. No fault cases also include an “action brought after termination of a tenancy for economic, business or other reasons not constituting a violation of the terms of the tenancy.” This situation would typically involve a decision by the landlord to sell the leased property.

In a no-fault case, a tenant may file a petition to seal the eviction record, with notice provided to the landlord. If no objection is filed within 7 days of filing the petition, the Housing or District Court will approve the petition administratively without a hearing. It will be interesting to see how the courts verify whether the landlord has been properly notified, if at all. My sense is that enforcement here will be quite lax.

Non-Payment of Rent Cases

Eviction sealing is available in non-payment of rent cases where a tenant has a clean eviction record for the last 4 years. The tenant must certify that the nonpayment of rent was due to economic hardship which rendered them unable to satisfy the judgment. Notice of record sealing must be provided to the landlord, and an objection must be filed within 7 days of the petition filing. If no objection is made, the court will presumptively order sealing of the record. If an objection is filed, the court must conduct a hearing to determine whether the nonpayment is due to economic hardship and may require the tenant to file a financial statement.

In cases where the tenant has paid up under a payment agreement or judgment, landlords are obligated to file with the court a satisfaction of judgment within 14 days of full payment. If the landlord doesn’t file the satisfaction, the tenant may petition for the entry of a satisfaction of judgment. Upon entry of the satisfaction, a tenant may petition immediately for sealing of the court record under the process above.

At Fault/For Cause Cases

In so-called at-fault and for cause cases (including nuisance/drug/criminal cases brought under Chapter 139, section 19), a tenant may petition for court record sealing if he or she has a clean eviction record for 7 years. At-fault/for cause cases typically involve serious violations of a lease or tenancy, such as drug or criminal activity, excessive noise, smoking, housekeeping, and behavioral problems. The filing procedure is the same as described above, with at fault/for cause cases presumptively approved where the landlord does not file an objection within 7 days of the petition filing. However, for Chapter 139, sec. 19 cases, a court hearing is required to determine whether the tenant has been charged with any crimes and sealing is in the interests of justice and public safety.

Dismissed Cases/Judgments In Favor of Tenant

In cases which have been dismissed or where the tenant wins and receives a judgment in their favor, the tenant may file a petition to seal the court record immediately without any notice to the landlord. These petitions will be administratively granted without a hearing.

I’ve flagged this provision as problematic because non-payment cases are often dismissed if a tenant moves out voluntarily, or shortly after a payment plan is completed or if the case is old. Tenants may be able to use this loophole to get cases sealed even if they do not presumptively qualify are able to skirt the 4 or 7 year waiting period.

Credit Reporting Agencies

In a far-reaching provision, Consumer Reporting agencies will need to comply with very strict limitations on using sealed (and un-sealed) eviction records in consumer credit reports. Credit agencies cannot disclose sealed records “unless the court record was available for inspection with the court within 30 days of the report date.” This provision is unclear and confusing, but I think the intended policy is that sealed records should not be available on credit reports. Credit agencies must remove from a credit report any information related to a sealed eviction court record within 30 days of sealing. (I’m not sure how agencies are going to monitor this). But the bill goes even further, requiring credit agencies, who collect non-sealed eviction court records, to list the exact type of eviction action on the credit report (i.e., no-fault, nonpayment, or for cause). This would require that credit agencies actually pull the court docket and make a determination of the type of case, which they are essentially incapable of doing unless they hire a small army of lawyers (which they likely won’t do). Tenants can recover actual damages and attorneys’ fees against credit agencies for violations of these new rules, and the Attorney General also has oversight jurisdiction. The net effect of these new rules will likely be that credit report agencies doing business in Massachusetts will stop collecting eviction records all together.

Rental Application Disclosure Language

The new measure also mandates that all tenant rental applications contain the following new language: “An applicant for housing or credit with a sealed record on file with the court pursuant to section of chapter 239 of the General Laws may answer ‘no record’ to an inquiry relative to that sealed court record.”

What’s Next?

As mentioned above, the measure does not go into effect until May 2025, and that’s probably a good thing because the courts need to create new forms, and the credit agencies have a lot of internal changes they will need to make. Same for landlords and rental agents. While I was writing this up, a colleague asked me this question: “If a record is sealed, does that prevent it from being a “hit” on the 4 or 7 year look-back periods when/if a tenant petitions for a record to be sealed?” My answer (as least right now) is that if a record is sealed, it appears that there should be no “hit” at all for any of the look back periods. Now this is in theory, and I think what will actually happen is either credit agencies will remove all eviction “hits” altogether from their MA reports, or there will be a big lag between what’s on the reports and what’s supposed to be sealed, and the onus will likely be on the tenants (or the courts ….good luck with that) to fix that. Since it’s Massachusetts, I’m sure it will be the usual mess! So we’ll see how this will shake out once the law goes live.  

________________________________________

If you are a landlord and have any questions about this new Massachusetts tenant screening law, please contact me at [email protected].

Massachusetts Eviction Sealing Bill New GL c. 239 s. 16 by Richard Vetstein on Scribd

{ 1 comment }

Tenant Rental Assistance Eviction Protection (Chapter 257) Re-enacted By Legislature and Gov. Healey

by Rich Vetstein on September 8, 2023

in COVID-19, Housing Court, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Rental Housing

Non-payment Evictions Put On Hold Until Tenant RAFT Applications Are Denied/Approved

Ignoring strong opposition from property owners, the Legislature and Gov. Healey have re-enacted a Covid-19 era tenant protection law (Chapter 257 of the Acts of 2020) which puts an indefinite hold on any non-payment eviction where the tenant has applied for rental assistance (RAFT) until such time as the application is approved or denied. This was part of the FY24 budget signed by Gov. Healey in early August, and fell under the radar of many folks in the rental property community.

As the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied. The net effect of this reenacted policy will be delay, delay, delay for all landlords filing non-payment of rent eviction cases, on top of the already hefty delay caused by the pandemic backlog of cases. When this law was originally put in place in 2020, landlords saw their time in court triple, according to Housing Court statistics. We can expect that to remain the same, or even worse.

Even more problematic, the limit for RAFT assistance in any 12 month period has been reduced to $7,000 — barely enough to cover a few months rent in the Greater Boston area. Most housing providers do not start evictions until tenants are behind several months, so by the time they get to court, arrearages are typically in the many thousands, and often well over the $7,000 cap. Furthermore, understaffed state agencies handling RAFT applications can be hit or miss. During the pandemic, tens of thousands of rental assistance applications “timed out” without explanation. Tenants will be able to further drag out the eviction process, resulting in many landlords being forced to negotiate huge unpaid rent concessions just to gain back possession of their units. I see this in court on a daily basis.

The “new” Chapter 257 law provides as follows:

In an action for summary process for nonpayment of rent, a court having jurisdiction over said action for summary process shall:

(i) grant a continuance for a period as the court may deem just and reasonable if, either at the time the answer is timely filed or on the date the trial is scheduled to commence: (1) the tenancy is being terminated solely for non-payment of rent for a residential dwelling unit; (2) the non-payment of rent was due to a financial hardship; and (3) the defendant demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the court, a pending application for emergency rental assistance; provided, however, the court may consider any meritorious counterclaim brought in said action for summary process;

(ii) issue a stay of execution on a judgment for possession if the requirements in clauses (1) to (3), inclusive, of paragraph (i) are met; and

(iii) not enter a judgment or issue an execution before the application for emergency rental assistance has been approved or denied.

The “new” Chapter 257 only applies to non-payment cases; it does not apply to no-fault, for cause, or post foreclosure cases. The law also contains some language which would allow a landlord to challenge whether the nonpayment of rent is actually due to a legitimate financial hardship. This would most likely require some type of evidentiary hearing. I will keep you informed as to any further developments with the new Chapter 257.

{ 1 comment }

Housing Court To Speed Up Eviction Cases and Shift To More In-Person Events

by Rich Vetstein on April 3, 2023

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

New Rules Aimed At Reducing Pandemic Era Case Backlogs and Delays

Are the old days of packed Thursday morning summary process sessions coming back? They just may be. With the expiration of a pandemic era law called Chapter 257 and the end of the Covid-19 emergency, the Massachusetts Housing Court just released an important new Standing Order 1-23 which will speed up cases and move to more in-person hearings and less virtual appearances. The new Standing Order should be welcome news to housing providers whose cases have been delayed due to Chapter 257 and the backlog of post-moratorium pandemic era cases.

Expiration of Chapter 257

With the expiration on March 31 of Chapter 257 of the Acts of 2020, there is no longer an automatic hold on cases where there is a pending rental assistance application filed by the tenant. However, while a case with a pending RAFT application will continue to move forward, that is not to say that a judge would evict a tenant who expects to receive rental assistance covering an arrearage. The problem has always been that since the RAFT limit decreased to $10,000, many landlords are owed more than that, so those landlords will not be penalized by the Chapter 257 delay any longer.

More In-Person Events

Second, all “Tier I” mediations, evidentiary hearings, and trials will be held in-person going forward, unless there are extraordinary circumstances for a virtual appearance. Virtual/Zoom will continue for all case management, pretrial and status conferences, emergency motions on short notice, and certain non-evidentiary hearings. I have mixed feelings about this. Having virtual Tier I mediation events saves legal fees for represented parties and is much better for a busy lawyer’s scheduling. Now a landlord will be charged 3+ hours of lawyer time as opposed to 30 minutes if we are forced to drive to Boston, Worcester or Lawrence for mediation dates. Evictions are already a lose-lose financial abyss for landlords, so I would hope that judges will routinely grant attorneys’ motions for a virtual Tier I hearing.

New Modified Two-Tiered System

For cases filed after June 5, 2023 and certain cases in progress, there is a new modified Two-Tiered System, which should move cases far quicker than current practice. The Tier I court event (mediation/case management) will be scheduled between 30-60 days from the case’s filing. In a change to prior practice and one that will add expense to landlords, the notice of the first court event must be served by constable/sheriff by the plaintiff or its attorney. I was quite disappointed to see this, although local constables will be happy undoubtedly.

Quicker Trial Dates

In a much welcome change, if the case does not resolve at the Tier I event, trials will scheduled 2 weeks later. Currently, the wait for a trial date, especially a jury trial, can be several months. This is great news, and hopefully the Court can implement this despite the huge case backlog and staffing issues. Cases which were filed before June 5, 2023 and have already been scheduled for the Tier I event, shall stay on the prior “slow” track.

Agreements

For agreements for judgment with a self-represented party, the new rules provide that such agreements must be approved by a Housing Specialist, Clerk or Judge who shall determine that the terms are fair and reasonable and that it was entered into voluntarily.

New Notice to Quit Affidavit of Compliance

Lastly, in all non-payment cases, a new affidavit of compliance with the Notice to Quit Attestation Form under G.L. c. 186, section 31 must be filed.

As always, if you have any questions about Massachusetts Evictions, please feel free to contact me at [email protected].

{ 1 comment }

Worcester Area Couple Evicted For 14th Time, Leaving Trail of Unpaid Judgments and Moving Bills For Local Property Owners

by Rich Vetstein on February 2, 2023

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

In my 25 years of law practice, I’ve seen a lot of crazy stuff, but this recent eviction case may top my list of “Professional Tenants.” With 14+ evictions, a slew of larceny charges on their record, and thousands in past rent owed in judgments, a husband and wife team from Shrewsbury have perfected an alleged pattern of fraud on local landlords. In my client’s case, they provided him with a bogus credit report and then proceeded to bounce a $13,500 deposit check for a 4 bedroom rental house in Shrewsbury. They failed to make good on the bad check, and squatted in the house for five months without paying a dime in rent, forcing the owner to evict them in Worcester Housing Court. After an 11th hour attempt to delay the move out where the husband lied in front of the judge, we completed a forced move out of the 3,000 sf home. The moving company president said this was the 4th time he has evicted this couple. With the lost rent and mandatory moving and storage fees, my client now faces a $30,000 loss. Before this, court records indicate the couple allegedly engaged in a similar pattern with other local landlords, jumping from one property to another, leaving a trail of unpaid judgments, attorney fees, and moving/storage bills.

So here in tenant-friendly Massachusetts we have these type of cases which essentially go undeterred, while tenant advocates and local politicians try to impose “just cause” legislation making it even harder to evict tenants. These are not isolated instances. Take a look at the Housing Court dockets and you’ll see hundreds if not thousands of massive (and worthless) judgments for unpaid rent.

The only saving grace in my case is that we were able to have criminal charges for larceny by check brought against the husband who passed the bad check. And the eviction *only* took three months start to finish, which is light speed these days. If you are a Worcester area rental property owner, please watch out for these people!

{ 1 comment }

Double Dipping By Cummings Properties Not Allowed In Commercial Lease Dispute

by Rich Vetstein on December 7, 2022

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

Appeals Court Rules That Liquidate Damages Clause Is Unenforceable Where It Allowed For Recovery of Rent For Remaining Term On Top of Rent Received From New Tenant

If you enjoyed the famous Seinfeld episode where George Costanza was accused of “double dipping” his chips and dip at a family funeral, then you’ll appreciate this post. The case is Cummings Properties LLC v. Hines (Mass. Appeals Court Dec. 6, 2022) where the Appeals Court struck down a liquidated damages clause in a commercial lease which purported to allow the landlord to recover a large financial penalty even though it was able to re-lease the premises.

The case is a good example of what can happen where a party can get a bit too greedy in seeking damages in a commercial lease case. Cummings Properties, one of the largest commercial real estate firms in the Greater Boston area, has a well deserved reputation of being an overly litigious commercial landlord (in my humble opinion). I’ve dealt with them several times, and I can tell you a few stories offline. Anyways, in this case, Cummings leased office space to Darryl Hines, who owned a constable/process serving business. Hines had just secured a lucrative contract with the Mass. Dept. of Revenue and needed a larger office for the new business. The lease was for 5 years at around $16,000 annually. Unfortunately, only a month into the new lease, the DOR abruptly cancelled the contract with Hines, leaving him in severe financial distress. Hines tried to work out a resolution with Cummings but it refused to release him from the lease obligations. Hines then defaulted. A year later, Cummings was able to find a new tenant and signed a 4 year lease. Cummings sued Hines, who signed a personal guaranty, for some $82,000 in damages representing the entire balance of the 5 year lease.

The lease provided for a rather common acceleration and liquidated damage provision: 

"In the event that . . . LESSEE defaults in the observance or performance of any term herein, and such default is not corrected within 10 days after written notice thereof, then LESSOR shall have the right thereafter, without demand of further notice, to declare the term of the lease ended, and/or to remove LESSEE's effects, without liability, including for trespass or conversion, and without prejudice to any other remedies.  If LESSEE defaults in the payment of any rent, and such default continues for 10 days after written notice thereof, and, because both parties agree that nonpayment of said sums is a substantial breach of the lease, and, because the payment of rent in monthly installments is for the sole benefit and convenience of LESSEE, then, in addition to any other remedies, the net present value of the entire balance of rent due herein as of the date of LESSOR's notice, using the published prime rate then in effect, shall immediately become due and payable as liquidated damages, since both parties agree that such amount is a reasonable estimate of the actual damages likely to result from such breach."

There has been a fair share of litigation in the last several decades over the enforceability of liquidated damage penalty clauses. These clauses are generally enforceable as long as it is not so disproportionate to anticipated damages as to constitute a penalty. Courts will generally enforce these clauses if (1) at the time the agreement was made, potential damages were difficult to determine, and (2) the clause was a reasonable forecast of damages expected to occur in the event of a breach. Massachusetts used to have a “second look” rule where judges could consider the state of events at the time of the breach, however, the SJC stopped that practice in 1999 in favor of a “single look” approach which only accounts for the circumstances present at contract formation.

The fatal problem for Cummings in this case was that its liquidated damage provision permitted it to have its cake and eat it too. That is, it allowed Cummings to re-lease the premises, collect rent from the new tenant without credit or offset to Hines, then on top of that, pursue all of the rent owed by Hines through the end of the 5 year term. This is akin to the “double dipping” perpetrated by said George Costanza in Seinfeld. The Appeals Court ruled that the clause allowed for such double dipping and was therefore an unfair penalty.

So what are the take-aways from this case? The obvious one for commercial landlords is don’t be a pig and chase a small business owner for tens of thousands of dollars over and above what you received in new lease funds. As far as drafting these clauses, it’s a tough one because so far humans have been unable to accurately predict future outcomes. I would say that your liquidated damage clause should have some type of caveat that the tenant will get credit for any rent received from a new tenant and be liable for the differential in rent through the end of the term. Hopefully that would work.

{ 0 comments }

Evictions Remain A “Lose-Lose” For Massachusetts Landlords: A Case Study

by Rich Vetstein on June 2, 2022

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

Suffolk Sheriff Deputies Enforcing Eviction Order

Recent Case Shows Fundamental Flaws Remain In The Housing Court Eviction System

I recently concluded an eviction with a forced moved out in Dorchester, MA, which epitomizes everything that is wrong with the system here in Massachusetts. For the privacy of the parties, I will not divulge the names or docket number of the case.

I represented the property owner, a young woman who grew up low income in Worcester and put herself through college, then law school, and is now working at a law firm. She bought a condo unit in Dorchester, but then had to relocate for work, so she rented it out to four people, including the defendant-tenant. The tenant, a young male, had a very hard time getting along with the other housemates so the three other tenants moved out, leaving this tenant there alone. Initially my client said that if he found new roommates, he could stay, but it was apparent that he was not going to do that, so we issued a notice to quit back in January 2021. He also stopped paying any rent.

When he failed to move out, we filed the eviction in Eastern (Boston) Housing Court in March 2021. The tenant was savvy and knew how to work the system. He took advantage of free legal services attorneys at every juncture in the case. We had two mediation sessions, where initially he appeared willing to enter into a move out agreement only to pull the rug out at the very last minute. We even dangled a cash-for-keys deal, which he rejected.

The tenant then tried to claim a jury trial after the deadline to do so, so we had a motion hearing on that issue, which thankfully Judge Kelleher denied that motion, but this also delayed the case. There was a snowstorm cancellation on the original trial date thrown in as well. We finally received a firm bench trial date in March 2022 — a full year after the case was filed. The tenant also refused to apply for RAFT aid (and we did not want to pursue that because we would be required to dismiss the case). Believe me, I tried to push the case forward as fast as I could, but with the pandemic case backlog it is very difficult.

My client came in from California for the trial which took all of 20 minutes, and went in our favor on all issues. Meanwhile, the tenant had still not paid a penny in rent, and the rent balance had ballooned to over $40,000 by that point. Judgement for possession entered for the landlord, and an execution for possession (move out order) issued in April 2022.

Due to the pandemic caused backlog of cases, the Suffolk Sheriff’s Office is extremely backed up in scheduling eviction move-out’s. We did not receive a firm date for our move out until June 1. We tried to negotiate a voluntary move out with the tenant but he would not budge. After all, he was living rent free himself in a 4 bedroom condo unit — why would he move out?

On June 1, a team of Suffolk Sheriff deputies, movers and a locksmith (all paid for by the landlord) conducted the move out. The tenant was completely non-cooperative and refused to open the door. A supervising lieutenant and Boston police officers were called as back up because you never know what could happen in this day and age. After about a 90 minute stand off, the deputies breached the door and gained entry. Not surprisingly, the unit was absolutely trashed, rugs destroyed, bottles of liquor everywhere, walls damaged, etc. Huge thanks to the Suffolk Sheriff deputies who were unbelievably professional and a pleasure to deal with.

After 16 months since the notice to quit was issued, here are my client’s losses: Lost rent ($55,000), attorneys’ fees ($10,000 range), court costs and eviction move out costs ($6000 range), clean up restoration costs ($5000+ range).

It’s these type of cases which should be highlighted when state legislators push the Right to Counsel and Just Cause Eviction bills. Massachusetts remains one of the worst states for landlords in the country. That much is undisputed.

{ 1 comment }

Boston Eviction Moratorium Will End On February 28, 2022, Appeals Court Single Justice Rules, But Questions Remain

by Rich Vetstein on February 15, 2022

in COVID-19, Housing Court, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Rental Housing

Justice Joseph M. Ditkoff

Appeals Court Justice Joseph M. Ditkoff Rules Boston Eviction Moratorium Must End On February 28, 2022, But Questions Remain Whether City Will Enact New Tailored Moratorium

The legal challenge to the Boston Eviction Moratorium just took an interesting turn on appeal. After Housing Court Justice Irene Bagdoian struck down the moratorium in a scathing opinion, Appeals Court Justice Joseph Ditkoff, considering an appeal along with a motion to stay by the Boston Public Health Commission, ruled that the moratorium must end no later than February 28, 2022. In an unusual move, he then commented in dicta (observations which do not hold the force of legal precedent), that the City could revise and narrow the moratorium based the current state of Covid-19 in the City. While landlord attorneys view the ruling as a win, a lot of attorneys who practice in the Housing Court are scratching their heads, trying to navigate the impact of this ruling on whether eviction move outs can proceed now, after February 28, or in the future. Certainly, if the City attempts to revise the moratorium, this would likely result in further litigation (in this case or others) over whether the current Covid-19 pandemic warrants further suspension of evictions in the city.

Take Away From Ruling

In drawing take-away’s from this ruling, the procedural posture is important. Back in November 2021, landlords and constables won a declaratory judgment from Justice Bagdoian that the moratorium exceeded the powers of the BPHC. She declined to stay that ruling, and the commission appealed to a single justice of the Appeals Court and sought a stay with Justice Ditkoff. A seeking a stay pending appeal must ordinarily meet four tests: (1) the likelihood of appellant’s success on the merits; (2) the likelihood of irreparable harm to appellant if the court denies the stay; (3) the absence of substantial harm to other parties if the stay issues; and (4) the absence of harm to the public interest from granting the stay.

On the first prong of the test, Justice Ditkoff disagreed with Judge Bagdoian. He felt that the moratorium was a “reasonable health regulation” enacted by the BPHC. But, he noted that under relevant Supreme Judicial Court legal precedent, an eviction moratorium of six months was reasonable. (The current moratorium has no stated termination date). As such, he ruled in this case only that the moratorium would stay in place through February 28, 2022 (which is 6 months from when it was enacted).

What’s Next? It Is Unclear

So what will happen next? There are several scenarios in play. Justice Ditkoff stated in dicta: “That is not to say that evictions necessarily must resume on March 1, 2022. The moratorium . . . could be extended for up to an additional six months upon a showing of hardship. In light of the rapidly changing situation arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, I have no occasion to consider at this time whether, at the end of February, the commission could enact a tailored and time-limited extension of the moratorium on the basis of the then-current COVID-19 hospitalizations and community positivity rates.” Thus, Mayor Wu’s office could come out with a revised moratorium order, more narrowly tailored and limited in duration. Or, she could extend the current order. Whatever she decides, further litigation will certainly follow. I know that the plaintiff/landlords are considering an appeal Justice Ditkoff’s ruling, which in my opinion would be warranted given the his faulty reasoning and the huge importance of the issue to landlords. That appeal could wind up before the entire Appeals Court or the Supreme Judicial Court. It is unclear at this point, and the timeline is unpredictable.

More Confusion

There is also a question as to the applicability of this ruling outside the parties in the case. The ruling was made in connection with a motion to stay — it is not supposed to be a decision on the merits — although Justice Ditkoff went far past that procedural limitation and said a lot of things about the merits of the moratorium. Justice Ditkoff also stated: “It should be stressed that I have considered only the legal rights of the city and the tenant, landlords, and constable before me. No doubt other tenants, landlords, and constables could raise different arguments regarding the validity of the moratorium, and due process requires that every such party be heard before a determination of that party’s rights are made. Nothing in this order should be construed as limiting or adjudicating the rights of parties not before me.” So this indicates that further challenges to the City moratorium could be raised in individual cases in the Housing Court. Which is odd because Ditkoff ordered that the moratorium would end no later than February 28. We’ll have to wait and see how this plays out. All of this, no doubt, cries out for a final and conclusive ruling from either the full Appeals Court or SJC.

As always, I’ll keep you posted on further developments. Check back here at the end of the month. I’ve posted Justice Ditkoff’s ruling below.

{ 0 comments }

Joint Housing Committee To Hear Controversial Housing Stability Act, Rent Control, And Other Tenant Protection Bills On Jan. 11

by Rich Vetstein on January 6, 2022

in COVID-19, Housing Court, Housing Discrimination, Landlord Tenant Law, Rental Housing

LINK TO VIRTUAL HEARING LIVESTREAM CLICK HERE

The Massachusetts Legislature’s Joint Committee on Housing will hold a virtual hearing and take testimony on 20 controversial Landlord-Tenant bills on Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 11 a.m. These bills include some of the most controversial and radical measures ever to reach Beacon Hill, including a return to rent control, the Housing Stability Act, Just Cause Evictions, Rent Cancellation, and many others.

Members of the public can register to testify by filling out this FORM by 5 p.m. on Friday, January 7, 2022.

Despite the large number of controversial bills, testimony will be limited to three minutes per individual, and the committee reserves the right to call public officials out of turn.

The bills which will be heard are the following (click Bill number for link to bill text):

H.1374 — An act relative to senior and non-elderly disabled housing (Rep. Biele)
H.1378 — An Act enabling local options for tenant protections (Rep. Connolly)
H.1380 — An act relative to capital relief in a counterclaim (Rep. Coppinger)
H.1381 — An act relative to reducing barriers in housing (Rep. Coppinger)
H.1401 — An act relative to provide tenant ownership in government assisted housing Rep. González)
H. 1429 — An act relative to the use of credit reporting in housing (Rep. Malia)
H. 1440 — An act relative to the stabilization of rents and evictions in towns and cities facing distress in the housing market (Rep. Rogers)
H. 1443 — An act requiring notice to landlords relating to gas or electric shutoffs (Rep. Roy)
H. 3721 — An act relative to avoiding senior homelessness and maintaining senior housing-stabilization of rents (Rep. DuBois)
H.4057 — An Act facilitating local approval of condominium conversion ordinances (Rep. Connolly)
H.4148 — An Act canceling the rent and providing relief to all impacted by the COVID-19 emergency (Rep. Connolly)
H.4208 — An Act authorizing the city of Somerville to enact Right to Purchase Legislation (Rep. Uyterhoeven)
H.4229 — An Act to restore Boston’s governmentally-involved housing protection (Rep. Elugardo)
S.863 — An Act relative to the disclosure of smoking within a multi-residence building by lessor (Sen. Brownsberger)
S.866 — An Act relative to homes for all (Sen. Chang-Diaz)
S.869 — An Act relative to reducing barriers to housing (Sen. Crighton)
S.884 — An Act to reduce the financial barriers to renting homes (Sen. Eldridge)
S.886 — An Act enabling local options for tenant protections (Sen. Gomez)
S.889 — An Act relative to the stabilization of rents and evictions in towns and cities facing distress in the housing market (Sen. Jehlen)
S.894 — An Act relative to the use of credit reporting in housing (Sen. Lesser)

Please contact Luke O’Roark at [email protected] for questions or inquires or to submit written testimony.

{ 1 comment }

Judge Rebuffs Mayor Wu’s Attempt to Resurrect Boston Covid-19 Eviction Moratorium

by Rich Vetstein on December 23, 2021

in COVID-19, Housing Court, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Rental Housing

Mayor Wu Loses Again In Housing Court; City Eviction Moratorium Remains Unlawful and Evictions Can Move Forward (For Now)

For the second time in a month, Housing Court Justice Irene Bagdoian has dealt the City of Boston’s Eviction Moratorium a major setback, this time, strongly rebuffing the City’s request to stay her previous ruling striking down the Moratorium pending appeal. In a scathing 16-page opinion citing a “nearly unachievable” likelihood of success on appeal by the City and the public’s “faith in our court system to deliver fair and swift adjudication and resolution of claims,” Judge Bagdoian refused to resurrect the City’s eviction moratorium during the City’s appeal. The judge also called out Mayor Wu’s public statements regarding her previous ruling which were inconsistent with the legal positions taken by the City in the case.

The fate of the City’s controversial eviction moratorium will now proceed to the Appeals Court, where the timetable is unknown as of this writing. Absent a stay from the Appeals Court, evictions and move out orders can proceed within the City limits.

Acting Mayor Kim Janey put the moratorium in place in August after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the nationwide Covid-19 eviction moratorium enacted by the Centers for Disease Control. Although entitled “temporary,” the moratorium has no specific end-date and prohibited landlords and constables being able to enforce move-out orders. The city also took the unusual step of issuing a threatening letter to all licensed city constables to abide by the eviction moratorium lest their licenses be in peril. The ruling received national attention, even appearing in the Wall Street Journal in an article entitled Boston’s Eviction Ban Overreach.

Last month, in response to a lawsuit filed by several small landlords in the city, Justice Irene Bagdoian struck down the moratorium as a gross overreach of municipal authority even during a pandemic. In now frequently cited language, she held that “this court perceives great mischief in allowing a municipality or one of its agencies to exceed its power, even for compelling reasons. . . . In this court’s view, such expansion of power by a governmental agency, even for compelling reasons, should be unthinkable in a democratic system of governance.” Since the Legislature has enacted a comprehensive statutory scheme to regulate evictions, the judge reasoned, individual cities cannot opt-out of provisions they feel are harmful to tenants, absent special legislative approval.

Attorneys Mitch Matorin, Jordana Greenman, and Jason Carter are representing the landlords in the consolidated actions challenging the moratorium. As Judge Bagdoian has noted several times from the bench, their legal work in this case has been outstanding. I filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on behalf of statewide landlords.

The next step in the case would be to a single justice or full panel of the Appeals Court. This case may well be destined for the state’s highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court. I will continue to keep you posted on developments. Judge Bagdoin’s opinion is posted below.

{ 4 comments }

Boston Eviction Moratorium Struck Down By Housing Court

by Rich Vetstein on November 29, 2021

in COVID-19, Housing Court, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Rental Housing

Housing Court Justice Irene Bagdoian Rules That Boston Covid-19 Eviction Moratorium Exceeded Public Health Emergency Powers

Updated (Dec. 23, 2021): Judge Denies Stay of Ruling Pending Appeal

In likely one of the most important cases ever heard by the Massachusetts Housing Court, Justice Irene Bagdoian declared that despite the gravity of the Covid-19 pandemic, the new City of Boston eviction moratorium exceeded the emergency statutory powers of the Boston Public Health Commission, and unlawfully interfered with the judicial functions of the Housing Court in overseeing eviction cases.

The moratorium was imposed by then Acting Mayor Kim Janey in August after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the nationwide eviction moratorium enacted by the Centers for Disease Control. Although entitled “temporary,” the order had no specific end-date and prohibited landlords and constables being able to enforce move-out orders (executions).

The lawsuit challenging the moratorium was filed by Attorneys Jordana Greenman and Mitch Matorin on behalf of Janet Avila, a Mattapan woman whose tenant owed her $29,000 in back rent, and a constable who the city has blocked from executing evictions. Attorney Jason Carter of Hingham filed a separate challenge which was consolidated with the Avila case. The city took the unusual step of issuing a threatening letter to all licensed city constables to abide by the eviction moratorium lest their licenses be in peril.

In striking down the moratorium, Judge Bagdoian issued a comprehensive well-reasoned written opinion, tracking the history and statutory powers of the Boston Public Health Commission which issued the moratorium. In very strong words she ruled, “This court perceives great mischief in allowing a municipality or one of its agencies to exceed its power, even for compelling reasons. . . . In this court’s view, such expansion of power by a governmental agency, even for compelling reasons, should be unthinkable in a democratic system of governance.” Since the Legislature has enacted a comprehensive statutory scheme to regulate evictions, the judge reasoned, individual cities cannot opt-out of provisions they feel are harmful to tenants, absent special legislative approval.

I participated substantially in this case, filing a friend-of-the-court brief, assisting the legal team, and observing the 3 hour oral arguments in Boston. The important case was handled exactly as expected with lengthy well researched briefing and argument on both sides by experienced, smart attorneys. Judge Bagdoian’s ruling was impressive in its breadth of research and analysis, and in my view, absolutely correct on the law. The bottom line is that in our top-down system of state government, any eviction moratorium must be approved by the Legislature, not individual city agencies.

Boston Mayor Michelle Wu has indicated the City will seek a stay of the ruling, according to the Boston Globe.

The Plaintiffs’ attorneys released the following comment: For a year and a half, small landlords have been told that they cannot regain possession of their own property and must continue provide housing to people who either are not paying rent or who are otherwise violating their tenancy agreements. Today, the Court correctly decided that cities and towns have no authority to do this. This decision is important not just for rental property owners in the City of Boston, but also for those in Somerville and Malden, which have similarly tried to impose city-wide eviction moratoriums contrary to state law. The Court’s decision today directly struck down the moratorium issued by the BPHC, but the same reasoning applies in Somerville and Malden, and we look forward to both of those cities promptly taking action to revoke their own moratoriums so that further litigation is not necessary.

{ 10 comments }

Legal Challenge Filed Against City of Boston Eviction Moratorium

by Rich Vetstein on October 29, 2021

in COVID-19, Housing Court, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Rental Housing

Lawsuit Filed On Behalf of Elderly Mattapan Homeowner Owed $29,000 in Rent, and Local Constable

Updated (Nov. 29, 2021) — Housing Court Justice Irene Bagdoian Strikes Down Boston Eviction Moratorium

A new lawsuit challenging the recent City of Boston Eviction Moratorium Order was filed this week in Eastern (Boston) Housing Court. The case will be before Judge Irene Bagdoian. The lawsuit was filed by veteran landlord attorney, Jordana Greenman, Esq. and Mitch Matorin, both of whom worked on the federal and state challenge to the Gov. Baker Eviction Moratorium. I will be assisting the team as needed, and will hopefully be able to file a “friend-of-the-court” brief in support.

After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the nationwide eviction moratorium imposed by the Centers for Disease Control, Boston Acting Mayor Kim Janey imposed a city-wide residential eviction moratorium effective August 31, 2021, which is in place indefinitely until the Boston Public Health Commission decides to terminate it, in its sole discretion. The order provides that “no landlord and/or owner shall serve or cause the service of notice of levy upon an eviction, or otherwise enforce a residential eviction upon a resident of Boston while this order is in effect.”

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Janet Avila, a Mattapan woman whose tenant owed her $29,000 in back rent. That eviction was blocked by state and then federal bans that were in place through much of the pandemic. In August, however, the Housing Court issued a final ruling in the case, allowing Avila to evict the tenant. That same day, Acting Mayor Janey announced the moratorium. She’s stuck with this tenant now and faces severe financial hardship. The other plaintiff is David Boudreau, a constable who the city has blocked from executing evictions. The city has also taken the unusual step of issuing a threatening letter to all licensed city constables to abide by the eviction moratorium lest their licenses be in peril.

As outlined in the lawsuit complaint linked below, the Boston Order is a clear violation of the Home Rule Amendment which prohibits local orders in direct conflict with state law (evictions). Boston would need full state legislative approval for such an eviction moratorium which it does not have. The order also appears to exceed the statutory authority of the Public Health Commission (similar to the reasoning of the Supreme Court in striking down the CDC moratorium). Indeed, Acting Mayor Janey made public statements acknowledging the questionable legality of the Order, but decided to enact it anyways during a hotly contested mayoral primary race.

In reality, the Boston Eviction Moratorium is preventing only the most troublesome tenants from being evicted. The vast majority of evictions are being funded and resolved without any forced move-outs with the influx of federal and state rental aid. However, there are many “no-fault” cases filed by property owners who want to move back into rental homes, where leases have expired, or where the landlord-tenant relationship has just soured. The Boston Order would make innocent landlords like Ms. Avila, stuck in those bad situations.

The Housing Court has scheduled an initial hearing in the case for Nov. 9. We expect the City and tenant advocates to mount a vigorous defense to this lawsuit.

{ 3 comments }

City of Boston Enacts Legally Dubious Eviction Moratorium

by Rich Vetstein on September 2, 2021

in COVID-19, Housing Court, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Rental Housing

After CDC Moratorium Struck Down by U.S. Supreme Court, Acting Mayor Janey Imposes Local Residential Eviction Moratorium Through Boston Public Health Commission

Update (Oct. 29, 2021): Mattapan Property Owner and Local Constable File Lawsuit Challenging Boston’s Eviction Moratorium

After the U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down the nationwide eviction moratorium imposed by the Centers for Disease Control, President Biden urged local cities and municipalities to impose eviction moratoriums at the local level. Boston Acting Mayor Kim Janey wasted no time in following that call to arms, imposing a city-wide residential eviction moratorium effective August 31, 2021, which is in place indefinitely until the Boston Public Health Commission decides to terminate it, in its sole discretion.

The order (embedded below) provides that “no landlord and/or owner shall serve or cause the service of notice of levy upon an eviction, or otherwise enforce a residential eviction upon a resident of Boston while this order is in effect.” The order does not apply in cases involving “serious violations” of the terms of a tenancy that impair the health and safety of other building residents or immediately adjacent neighbors.”

As the title to this post indicates, my opinion is that this order is completely unlawful on several grounds. It is a clear violation of the Home Rule Amendment which prohibits local orders in direct conflict with state law (evictions). Boston would need full state legislative approval for such an eviction moratorium which it does not have. The order also appears to exceed the statutory authority of the Public Health Commission (similar to the reasoning of the Supreme Court in striking down the CDC moratorium). The order would also run afoul of several constitutional principles (5th Amendment, Contracts Clause, access to courts) which we raised in our previous challenge to the statewide eviction moratorium in federal court.

In discussions with the Eastern (Boston) Housing Court officials, they have indicated they are not bound by the order and that executions for possession (move out orders) will continue to be issued by the Clerk’s Office. Interestingly, the order itself does not specifically apply to the courts, only to a landlord or owner, and only targets the very last step in the eviction process, the levy of execution. The number of forced move outs in Boston remains very small — estimates are that only about 200 cases have reached this final stage during the pandemic. Formal guidance is expected within the next few days. We have had discussions with several landlords about filing a legal challenge to the new moratorium.

As reported in the Boston Globe, Boston housing chief Sheila Dillon said city officials began discussing a local moratorium on Friday after the Supreme Court’s ruling. The city has focused on helping struggling tenants obtain rent relief — some 12,500 households in Boston have received about $72 million in state and local aid, she said — but officials are also worried about an immediate spike in evictions now that the federal ban is gone. And despite the potential for lawsuits challenging the ban, Dillon said, they decided to do what they could now. “We anticipate that there may be some legal challenges to this,” Dillon said. “We felt it was really important to try. We do think evictions are a public health issue.”

{ 0 comments }

BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down CDC Eviction Moratorium

by Rich Vetstein on August 26, 2021

in COVID-19, Housing Court, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Rental Housing

6-3 Ruling Puts End to Nationwide Residential Eviction Moratorium

In a late night “shadow docket” ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority struck down the controversial nationwide CDC Eviction Moratorium which paused virtually all residential evictions in the country through October 3. The eviction moratorium, first put in place by the Trump administration in July 2020, expired at the end of July 2021. Previously, Justice Kavanaugh indicated that the Court would strike it down, but allowed it to expire on July 31. But with increasing Covid rates over the summer, the Biden administration’s Centers for Disease Control put a new moratorium in place tied to county Covid-19 transmission rates.

The challenger in the lawsuit, the Alabama Association of Realtors, petitioned the Supreme Court for the very rare immediate expedited review. The Court’s majority granted review, and found that the CDC’s limited public health statutory authority was not broad enough to shut down all evictions across the country, ruling that “the CDC has imposed a nationwide moratorium on evictions in reliance on a decades-old statute that authorizes it to implement measures like fumigation and pest extermination. It strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the CDC the sweeping authority that it asserts.”

Unless Congress passes legislation providing for eviction protections (which it unsuccessfully tried to pass earlier in the summer), the Supreme Court’s ruling clears the way for hundreds of thousands of evictions to resume across in the country. Looming overhead also are billions of rental aid funds which have yet to be distributed by federal agencies and state governments. This was noted by the Court’s three liberal dissenting justices, along with the Delta variant surge.

Here in Massachusetts, the Legislature previously enacted a quasi eviction moratorium which pauses all evictions where a tenant has applied for rental aid. Thus, the Supreme Court’s ruling may not have as much of an effect here in the Bay State as other parts of the country. However, we will likely see more move-out orders issued by the Housing Court for cases not involving rental aid applications or where landlords have rejected rental aid funding.

On a personal note, I feel quite vindicated right now. As most of you know, I was one of the first attorneys in the country (along with my co-counsel Jordana Greenman) to challenge an eviction moratorium in federal court. We made many of the same arguments as presented to SCOTUS. However, on the flip side, the federal and state governments have done a disastrous job in distributing the billions of available rental aid funds to tenants and landlords. I think we have done it right here in Massachusetts with Chapter 257 and its pause on evictions where a RAFT application is pending. Congress should pass similar legislation to prevent unnecessary evictions and displacements while ensuring that appropriated rental aid funds get into the hands of property owners and tenants. If Congress doesn’t act, then we will definitely see more displacements which is not what we want during the Delta surge. (This is coming from a pro-landlord attorney).

{ 6 comments }

Rising From The Dead, CDC Eviction Moratorium Extended Once Again

by Rich Vetstein on August 4, 2021

in COVID-19, Housing Court, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Rental Housing

CDC Issues New Eviction Moratorium Through October 3, 2021, Pausing Evictions In Areas Of “Substantial” Covid-19 Transmission

Like a zombie apocolypse from the Walking Dead, the eviction moratorium issued by the Centers for Disease Control, which expired on July 31, has been resurrected by the Biden administration. Citing widespread delays in the distribution of federal rental aid relief funds, the influx of the new Delta variant, and concerns of tenant homelessness from progressive Democrats such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Cori Bush, the CDC yesterday issued a new order pausing all evictions for 60 days in areas of “substantial” Covid-19 transmission. Based on current CDC guidelines, the new order applies to every Massachusetts county except for Franklin and Hampshire. You can check on whether your local area is covered here at the CDC’s Covid Data Tracker. The new CDC order essentially carries over the protections and requirements from the previous order. A CDC hardship declaration form submitted by a tenant under the previous order will apply under the new order.

What does this mean here in Massachusetts? In all non-payment cases where a tenant has filed a CDC hardship declaration and qualifies for protection, they should not be forcibly moved out. Cases can still be moved forward and resolved by way of mediated agreements. In “no-fault” cases, some judges have applied the moratorium where rent is also sought; some have declined. Like the previous order, the moratorium does not apply in cases involving criminal activity. Also, Massachusetts has its own limited moratorium on evictions (Chapter 257 of the Acts of 2020) where a tenant has a pending application for rental aid. The Housing Court is pushing that landlords accept rental aid to pay off arrearage balances as well as future rent. Housing judges are also holding hearings on whether tenants legitimately qualify for CDC protection.

Property owners were successful in getting a federal court of appeals to strike down the previous CDC eviction moratorium. It went up to the Supreme Court where Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled the order was on very shaky legal ground, although the Court declined to strike it down right before it expired on July 31. Property owners will have to start over and file a new lawsuit challenging the new order. By the time it works its way through the courts once again, it will likely have expired by October 3. Progressive Democrats, including Cori Bush and AOC, camped out for days at the Capitol in protest over the expiration of the original moratorium. Readers of this Blog may remember that yours truly along with Jordana Greenman, Esq. were successful in using a federal challenge to the toughest-in-the-nation Massachusetts eviction moratorium to persuade Gov. Baker to let it expire a year ago in October.

As always, I’ll keep you updated as to any developments with the moratorium and eviction related legal issues.

{ 4 comments }

CDC Eviction Moratorium Extended One Final Time Through July 31, 2021

by Rich Vetstein on June 24, 2021

in COVID-19, Housing Court, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Rental Housing

Massachusetts Also Extends Certain Eviction Protections

The Centers for Disease Control announced today that its CDC Eviction Moratorium will be extended one final time through July 31, 2021. The CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky issued the following statement: “CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky has signed an extension to the eviction moratorium further preventing the eviction of tenants who are unable to make rental payments. The moratorium that was scheduled to expire on June 30, 2021 is now extended through July 31, 2021 and this is intended to be the final extension of the moratorium. The COVID-19 pandemic has presented a historic threat to the nation’s public health. Keeping people in their homes and out of crowded or congregate settings — like homeless shelters — by preventing evictions is a key step in helping to stop the spread of COVID-19.”

The CDC Eviction Moratorium will continue to apply in Massachusetts absent a court order overruling it (which is highly unlikely). The moratorium, which allows for new and existing eviction cases to be filed and moved forward, but stops all forced-move outs, applies to all non-payment cases and to some “no-fault” cases.

Rental Assistance Protections and Notice to Quit Measures Extended

Earlier in the month, Gov. Baker signed a bill (now codified as Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021) extending certain Covid-19 related eviction protections for tenants. Among the measures extended was Chapter 257 of the Acts of 2020, which imposes a temporary stay on eviction cases and move-out orders where tenants have applied for short term emergency rental assistance. Millions of dollars in rental aid have been flowing into Massachusetts, and both landlords and tenants alike have been taking advantage of the influx of federal funds to pay down rent arrearages and secure new housing. The stay on cases where a RAFT application is pending is extended through April 1, 2022. The new bill also extended the new rules governing what language must accompany notices to quit. Notices to quit for nonpayment must continue to show language about renter rights, through January 1, 2023. Notices to quit for nonpayment must continue to be copied to the state, through January 1, 2023.

{ 5 comments }

BREAKING: CDC Eviction Moratorium Extended Through June 30, 2021

by Rich Vetstein on March 29, 2021

in COVID-19, Housing Court, Landlord Tenant Law, Rental Housing

The Centers for Disease Control has just extended the national eviction moratorium through the end of June. “The COVID-19 pandemic has presented a historic threat to the nation’s public health,” CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said in a statement. “Keeping people in their homes and out of crowded or congregate settings — like homeless shelters — by preventing evictions is a key step in helping to stop the spread of COVID-19.” The new order, entitled “CDC Temporary Halt In Residential Evictions to Prevent the Further Spread of Covid-19” is embedded below.

The eviction ban was scheduled to expire on March 31. While there have been several court rulings in other states overturning the eviction ban, it will remain in place here in Massachusetts in the absence of an adverse court ruling. The moratorium applies primarily to non-payment cases, however, at least one Housing Court judge has applied it to “no fault” cases where the landlord has also made a claim for unpaid rent. Notices to quit and new eviction cases can still be filed and advanced through the court system, however, the CDC moratorium will prevent executions, or move-out orders, to be issued against qualifying tenants.

The CDC eviction moratorium requires that tenants take an affirmative step to qualify for protection. Tenants must send their landlord a CDC-approved affidavit in which they certify under oath that they are:

  • Unable to pay rent due to a coronavirus-related job loss or income reduction, or qualified fora direct stimulus payment under the CARES Act or expect to earn less than $99,000, or $198,000 if filing a joint tax return. 
  • Have made best efforts to obtain all available government assistance to cover rent;
  • Is unable to pay full rent due to a substantial loss of household income, loss of compensable hours of work or wages, a lay-off, or extraordinary out of pocket medical expenses;
  • Is using best efforts to make timely partial payments of rent that are as close to the full payment as the individual’s circumstances may permit, taking into account other non discretionary expenses; and
  • Eviction would likely render the tenant homeless or force him/her to move into and live in close quarters in a new congregate or shared living setting because the tenant has no other available housing options. 

{ 1 comment }

Frustration of Purpose: Judge Rules Newbury Street Cafe’s Rent Excused During Covid-19 Shutdown

by Rich Vetstein on February 14, 2021

in Commercial Leasing, COVID-19, Landlord Tenant Law, Leasing, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Real Estate Litigation

One of the First Reported Court Rulings Addressing Whether Business Can Be Legally Excused From Paying Rent While Subject to Government Covid-19 Shutdown

As the Boston Globe reported this week, Suffolk Superior Court Business Litigation Session Judge Kenneth Salinger ruled that a Caffe Nero coffee shop on Newbury Street was legally excused from paying rent for the nearly three months last spring when indoor dining was halted under state orders to combat the spread of COVID-19. The ruling could give leverage to struggling restaurants dealing with lost business and unpaid rent bills. The 12-page court ruling is embedded below.

UMNV 205-207 Newbury LLC (UrbanMeritage) v. Caffe Nero Americas, Inc., Suffolk Superior Court CA 2084CV01493-BLS2

The dispute between Caffe Nero and UrbanMeritage, a prominent Back Bay landlord that owns a number of storefronts on Newbury Street, began not long after Governor Charlie Baker ordered indoor dining closed on March 24, 2020 — a massive blow for a European-style cafe whose business model hinges on people lingering over lattes and croissants. Caffe Nero promptly asked for a break on its roughly $13,000-a-month rent, but UrbanMeritage said no, and issued a default notice for nonpayment. By June, UrbanMeritage had launched eviction proceedings, ultimately filing a lawsuit seeking more than $300,000 in back rent, damages, and legal fees.

Frustration of Purpose Doctrine

Applying the doctrine of “frustration of purpose,” Judge Salinger ruled that rent payment is excused when performance becomes impossible through no fault of either party, such as a natural disaster or pandemic. Since Caffe Nero’s lease only allowed for restaurant use (and no other uses), and Gov. Baker’s Covid-19 shutdown order of indoor dining during the early days of the pandemic prevented that use, Judge Salinger found that the doctrine of frustration of purpose applied in this case.

Force Majeure Clause

Judge Salinger also side-stepped the parties’ “force majeure” lease clause, which could have been read to negate the frustration of purpose defense used by Caffe Nero. A force majeure provision is a common clause commercial leases which essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as a war, strike, riot, crime, epidemic, sudden legal changes or an event described by the legal term Act of God, prevents one or both parties from fulfilling their obligations under the contract. The force majeure provision in the Caffe Nero lease, however, specifically stated that the payment of rent due to financial inability cannot be a reason to invoke the clause. In perhaps questionable reasoning, Judge Salinger ruled that “the force majeure provision addresses the risk that performance may become impossible but does not address the distinct risk that the performance could still be possible even while [the] main purpose of the Lease is frustrated by events not in the parties’ control.”

Take-Aways

I have several Covid-19 related lawsuits pending where businesses and restaurants could not pay their rent during the pandemic, and I’ve pled the same defense as Caffe Nero did in this case. (I don’t yet have a formal ruling in my cases). I think it’s inevitable that we will see more of the same rulings by judges who are sympathetic to businesses who were shut down completely due to Gov. Baker’s orders. Certainly, this ruling will cause landlords to reevaluate whether they will be able to collect all unpaid rent from a Covid-impacted business. Of course, the usual considerations will also apply — financial ability to pay, assets, timing of payments, etc. We will see….as always, if you are dealing with a commercial lease dispute or know someone who is, feel free to contact me at [email protected].

{ 1 comment }

President Biden Extends Federal Eviction and Foreclosure Moratorium Through March 31, 2021

by Rich Vetstein on January 27, 2021

in COVID-19, Housing Court, Landlord Tenant Law, Leasing, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Rental Housing

Extension of Eviction and Foreclosure Moratorium Part of Flurry of Executive Orders Signed by Biden In First 48 Hours Of Presidency

On January 20, 2021, President Joseph Biden signed an executive order mandating that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) extend the current CDC federal eviction moratorium until March 31, 2021. While the extension is not yet published in the Federal Register, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the new director of the CDC, has already agreed to implement the eviction moratorium extension. As is the practice under the current moratorium, a tenant must provide the necessary CDC declaration to the landlord and/or court to secure protection of the moratorium. 

While signing the new Executive Order, President Biden also stated that he wants to work with Congress to extend the moratorium even further through September 2021. So we will be monitoring how that plays out.

The Executive Order similarly calls on federal housing agencies such as the Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA), the Federal Housing Authority (FHA), and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to extend their existing foreclosure and eviction moratoriums through March 31, 2021.

While the Biden administration has presented its American Rescue Plan (ARP), which includes an additional $25 billion in rent and utility aid to households in need, much of the rental and utility relief set forth in the ARP requires approval from Congress, similar to the year-end pandemic relief bill that was signed into law on December 27, 2020.

Temporary Eviction Moratorium for Tenants Applying for Short Term Emergency Rental Assistance (RAFT)

As I wrote about earlier, at the very end of 2020, Gov. Baker signed into law Chapter Chapter 257 of the Acts of 2020 which provides for a mandatory pause on any eviction where a tenant has applied for rental assistance. The Housing Court has issues a new Standing Order which provides as follows:

  1. If the parties do not agree to a continuance, a party may request a continuance by motion.  Notwithstanding its equitable authority, pursuant to Section 2(b) of St. 2020, c. 257, the court “shall grant a continuance for a period as the court may deem just and reasonable if” the court determines that the criteria enumerated in the statute are met.
  2. Pursuant to Section 2(b) of St. 2020, c. 257, no judgment may enter, nor may any execution issue, in a summary process action for nonpayment of rent if there is a pending application for rental assistance.  While parties may enter into an agreement for judgment in such an action, the agreement shall include language that entry of judgment and enforcement of the agreement is subject to St. 2020, c. 257 and the CDC Order.

We are seeing a big increase in tenants applying for, and being accepted for, RAFT aid, which is now increased to a maximum of $10,000, plus stipends available to cover future rent. So this is a good thing.

My general advice to landlords now is that if your tenant owes $10,000 or less, you really should seriously consider going the RAFT route, otherwise you aren’t going to get your tenant out until the summer at the earliest, and you’ll be owed even more in unpaid rent. If you are owed over $10,000, it’s a different calculation. You may want to consider offering a move-out agreement with rent waiver and/or cash for keys, in order to cut your losses. Otherwise, prepare for a long wait for your trial date. You can theoretically file a motion for rent escrow but you’ll have to wait for your hearing date, etc.

{ 0 comments }

Gov. Baker Vetoes Tenant Right to Purchase and Eviction Record Sealing Bills

by Rich Vetstein on January 16, 2021

in COVID-19, Housing Court, Landlord Tenant Law, Leasing, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Rental Housing

Rental Property Owners Feared Disruption of Rental Property Market by Allowing Tenants Right to Purchase For-Sale Income Properties

In the wee morning hours of the last legislative session at 4AM, Massachusetts legislators passed House Bill H.B.5250 “An Act enabling partnerships for growth,” which included a controversial provision giving tenants the right to purchase (also knowns as a right of first refusal) rental property when owners put it up for sale. It also included a provision allowing for tenant eviction records to be sealed from public view. Publicly available records have been part of landlords’ application screening tools for many years now. After intense lobbying by the real estate industry, Gov. Baker vetoed both measures.

The Tenant Right to Purchase (TOPA) provision would have given tenants a right of first refusal to purchase for-sale rental and multi-family properties throughout the state, with some limited exceptions. Such a measure has been a disaster in Washington DC with a cottage industry created to essentially shakedown landlords for money and hold up sales. In his veto proclamation, Gov. Baker stated that “these requirements would significantly delay the sale of multifamily homes throughout the Commonwealth, and potentially chill the production of new housing when we desperately need to produce more. Because a viable exit strategy often is critical to a developer’s willingness to undertake a project, I am concerned that making multifamily sales more unpredictable will result in less investment and construction of fewer new rental units.”

The Eviction Sealing measure would have given tenants the ability to seal their eviction records from public view. The problem with this measure is it was too broad, applying to both no-fault cases as well as certain “for cause” cases which may have involved situations with criminal or drug activity or the endangerment of other tenants. As Gov. Baker stated in his veto proclamation, keeping this information secret would cause unnecessary risks. Further, court administrators told the Governor that the measure would cause significant administrative burden, especially now that the courts are dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic and the need to process cases remotely for the foreseeable future.

Now that the legislative session has ended, the Legislature would have to re-file and pass these bills again in the upcoming session, which again would be met with the Governor’s veto. I’m not sure they can obtain a veto-proof majority. I’ll keep you updated with any developments.

Along with these vetoes, Gov. Baker did enact his long-sought Housing Choice legislation, which I will update in a future post. This bill contains major changes to the state Zoning Code, Chapter 40A.


{ 1 comment }

Covid-19 Emergency Legislation: New Requirements for Notice to Quit for Non-Payment of Rent, Temporary Eviction Moratorium For Rent Assistance Applications

by Rich Vetstein on January 5, 2021

in COVID-19, Housing Court, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Rental Housing

Changes Include New Attestation Form For Landlords Regarding Applicability of CDC Eviction Moratorium and CARES Act, Submission to State Database, Moratorium of Eviction Cases Where Tenant Applies for RAFT Assistance

While the Massachusetts Legislature was busy passing a massive year-end budget and Covid-19 relief bill, included in the new measure were major changes to notices to quit for residential non-payment of rent evictions, as well as an eviction moratorium in cases where the tenant applies for short term rental assistance funding. Gov. Baker signed the bill into law as Chapter 257 of the Acts of 2020. This new law is in effect until the termination of the Covid-19 State of Emergency (whenever that may be).

New Attestation Form for Notices to Quit for Nonpayment of Rent

Any landlord serving a tenant with a notice to quit for non-payment of rent must now include a state-required form with various certifications, including:

  • Whether the tenant has submitted a CDC Eviction Moratorium Hardship Declaration Form;
  • Whether the leased premises is covered as a “dwelling unit” under the federal CARES Act. (If the unit is covered under the CARES Act, then a 30 day notice is most likely required).
  • Whether there is an existing agreement between the parties concerning the repayment of rent.

You can download the new Massachusetts Notice to Quit Attestation Form here. The state has also created a special webpage and an Instruction Sheet to help landlords comply. Housing Courts will not accept summary process cases for filing without the new attestation form. Screenshot of the new Attestation Form is shown below.

The new Attestation Form also provides tenants with a list of available rental assistance programs, information on the federal CDC eviction moratorium, and court rules on evictions. See below.

Required Upload of Notice to Quit to Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development

The new law also requires that any notice to quit for non-payment of rent covered by the new law be uploaded electronically to the state Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development. The states has created a new Portal to enable these uploads.

Temporary Eviction Moratorium for Tenants Applying for Short Term Emergency Rental Assistance

The new law also authorizes housing court judges to impose a temporary stay or moratorium on eviction cases and move-out orders where tenants have applied for short term emergency rental assistance like RAFT. The law is drafted in the mandatory that judges “shall” grant a continuance, a stay of execution, or refrain from entering judgment, “for a period as the court may deem just and reasonable” if the tenant is financially impacted by Covid-19 and has applied for any form of federal, state, or local rental assistance. With the influx of new applications due to the pandemic and expiration of the original eviction moratorium, rental assistance applications have been plagued with substantial delays, as the Boston Globe has reported, with reports of applications pending many months. As such, this provision will operate to significantly delay pending evictions where tenants have simply applied for rental assistance. Also I should note that under the RAFT program, if a landlord accept the rental assistance funds, they must agree to forbear on any eviction for up to 6 months (or longer if kids are present).

Problems and Concerns

These new provisions came as somewhat of a surprise to the rental property industry and indeed the court system, as I received some last minute guidance from a clerk-magistrate just yesterday. The new Attestation Form is quite onerous and will be very difficult for small, unrepresented landlords to complete accurately. It also arguably makes landlords provide legal advice to tenants which could be against the landlord’s interests, a potential violation of the First Amendment, as Judge Mark Wolf ruled in the legal challenge to the Eviction Moratorium (in which I was lead counsel).

In the Attestation Form, it basically makes all landlords provide a defense against their own case by advising tenants about the CDC federal moratorium and telling them they should provide a CDC hardship form to a tenant if they “believe” the tenant is eligible for its protections. How is a landlord suppose to make a determination whether a tenant is eligible for financial hardship without having access to the tenant’s personal financial information?

The Attestation Form then requires that landlords make a legal determination as to whether the leased premises qualifies as a “covered dwelling” under the CARES Act. See below.

As you can see, the legal determination of applicability under the CARES Act is very complex, necessitates research of whether a mortgage is federally backed, and typically requires the assistance of an attorney. Landlord attorneys have been struggling with making these determinations since the CARES Act was first passed.

Next, the new Attestation Form requires landlords to make another legal determination — whether the notice is in compliance with the CARES Act, which requires at least a 30 day notice (as opposed to the standard 14 day notice for non-payment under Mass. law). See below. Again, landlords are forced to read and interpret a section of a federal statute when they’re not a lawyer.  And why should landlords have to certify that it complies – it either does comply, or it doesn’t comply — that’s a judge’s job. 

Well, there’s a lot to unpack with these new requirements. It just reinforces the sage advice that landlords should always have an experienced landlord-tenant attorney representing them in all eviction cases. There are now so many new rules and traps for the unwary. As always, please contact me with any questions via email: [email protected] or phone at 508-620-5352.

{ 5 comments }

← Previous Entries