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.
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:
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.
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.
Richard Vetstein, Esq. and Jordana Greenman, Esq., the two attorneys who successfully challenged the Massachusetts Eviction Moratorium in federal court, led this Zoom webinar discussing the re-opening of the Housing Court next week after the Eviction Moratorium expires on Oct. 17. In anticipation of its re-opening during the Covid-19 pandemic and with a major backlog in pending cases, the Housing Court has issued major changes to its court rules, including a new two-Tiered case management system, virtual (Zoom) hearings, and application of the CDC Eviction Moratorium. Attorneys Vetstein and Greenman give an overview of the new procedures, talk about what they think Housing Court practice will look like going forward, and then take questions and answers. This is a can’t miss webinar from two highly experienced landlord-tenant attorneys with inside knowledge of the inner workings of the Housing Court. If you are a rental property owner affected by the Moratorium and desire to re-start a pending case or file a new case, this is for you.
If you cannot view the embedded video, please click this LINK.
For more information about a pending or new eviction in Massachusetts, please contact Richard Vetstein at [email protected].
Lawyers To Give Free Zoom Webinar Tomorrow Oct. 15, 12:30pm
Richard Vetstein, Esq. and Jordana Greenman, Esq., the two attorneys who successfully challenged the Massachusetts Eviction Moratorium in federal court, will lead a free Zoom webinar tomorrow October 15, 2020 at 12:30pm, discussing the re-opening of the Housing Court next week after the Eviction Moratorium expires on Oct. 17.
In anticipation of its re-opening during the Covid-19 pandemic and with a major backlog in pending cases, the Housing Court has issued major changes to its court rules, including a new two-Tiered case management system, virtual (Zoom) hearings, and application of the CDC Eviction Moratorium. Attorneys Vetstein and Greenman will give an overview of the new procedures, talk about what they think Housing Court practice will look like going forward, and then take questions and answers. This is a can’t miss webinar from two highly experienced landlord-tenant attorneys with inside knowledge of the inner workings of the Housing Court. If you are a rental property owner affected by the Moratorium and desire to re-start a pending case or file a new case, this is for you. Zoom information below. See you tomorrow!
As the Legislature and Gov. Baker consider extending the Eviction Moratorium Act, which expires Aug. 18, a new lawsuit challenging the Moratorium has been filed in Federal Court in Boston. I am lead counsel in the case, along with my colleague, Jordana Greenman, Esq. The case is Baptiste v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, United States District Court – Massachusetts, CA 1:20-CV-11335 (MLW).
Local Nurse Owed Nearly $19,000 from Tenants
The federal suit is filed by Marie Baptiste, a long time dedicated nurse originally from Haiti, who owns rental property in Randolph. Unfortunately Ms. Baptiste’s tenants owe her nearly $19,000 in back rent, and they refuse to even communicate with her. Under the current Eviction Moratorium, she cannot even send out a notice to quit or start a new eviction case. If the Act is extended, as new legislation provides, she will be forced to house these non-paying tenants potentially for another 12+ months, which will certainly result in financial ruin. The second plaintiff is Mitch Matorin, who owns rental property in Worcester and has a pending Housing Court eviction against his tenants who owe him $7,200 in back rent. Ms. Baptiste’s and Mr. Matorin’s stories are being replicated throughout the state as thousands of small rental housing providers struggle to keep afloat during the Covid-19 crisis.
Federal Constitutional Claims
In the new lawsuit, we are seeking to strike down and enjoin the Moratorium, as unconstitutional. The Moratorium has shut down virtually every pending and future eviction case statewide since April 20, 2020. Massachusetts has survived the Civil War, Great Depression, two World Wars, the 1917 Influenza pandemic, and numerous recessions, and until now has never implemented a wholesale moratorium on the exercise of the most basic right underlying the entire field of rental housing, the right to evict.
We believe that the Act violates the following four separate constitutional rights of our clients: (1) the right to petition the judiciary; (2) the right of free speech under the First Amendment; (3) the right to just compensation for an unlawful taking of their property under the Fifth Amendment; and (4) is an unconstitutional impairment of their leases under the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Housing providers like Marie and Mitch remain obligated to pay their mortgages, real estate taxes, insurance, and water/sewer used by non-paying tenants, and to maintain their properties in compliance with the state sanitary code, while being deprived of the revenue required to do those things. With the Governor having the unfettered right to extend the Act for unlimited 90-day periods and ongoing legislative efforts to extend the moratorium for a full year or longer, this one-sided obligation and burden will continue indefinitely. Many small rental property owners, especially those on fixed income rely on rents to afford to live in their own homes.
The case has been assigned to Judge Mark Wolf. The court will schedule a hearing on our request for an injunction, likely in early August.
State Court Lawsuit Remains Pending, Hearing Scheduled for July 30
Our lawsuit in Suffolk Superior Court is still pending. We have a major hearing on July 30 (with friend of the court briefs due July 24), and with this new federal case being filed, we are hopeful that two lawsuits in play will give pause to legislators and the Governor as they consider whether to extend the Moratorium and the new extension bill, H.D. 5166.
Thank you all for your continued support. We would be remiss if we didn’t post the link to our fundraising Paypal https://paypal.me/pools/c/8orbLzpxbY. We have spent many many hours and long nights on this case, as you can imagine. Our legal brief can be read below.
Rental Housing Providers Strongly Opposed to 12+ Month Proposed Eviction Moratorium Extension, Rent Freezes Without Adequate Financial Relief
State Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge) and Rep. Kevin Honan (D-Allston), the lead sponsors of the Eviction Moratorium Act, have filed a wide-ranging tenant protection bill as the COVID-19 crisis wears on into the summer months. “The COVID-19 Housing Stability Act” (H.D. 5166) would extend the Eviction Moratorium for at least 12 months, as well as freeze rents statewide for a one year period after the COVID-19 emergency lifts. The bill also provides for “just cause” tenant protections, foreclosure relief, and establishes a Housing Stability and Recovery Fund, but without any specific funding source.
As I will outline below, the bill is extremely problematic for, and one-sided against, rental property owners in a number of respects:
12+ Month Extension of Eviction Moratorium
The bill would prohibit any eviction for non-payment of rent until 12 months has expired from whenever Gov. Baker lifts the COVID-19 State of Emergency. Thus, all non-payment evictions would likely be prohibited statewide until 2022, because Gov. Baker will keep the Emergency Declaration in place for as long as possible. The measure also allows any city/town to unilaterally extend the ban on evictions *forever* by an act of the city/town council.
The bill also prohibits recovery of unpaid rent in any pending eviction, if the non-payment was caused “in any way, directly or indirectly” by COVID-19. The bill then creates a rebuttable presumption that the tenant falls within that category, shifting the burden of proof to the property owner who must prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that failure to pay was not based “in whole or in part” on Covid-19. Running a 4 minute mile is easier than satisfying this standard, and virtually guarantees that landlords will be unable to evict based on non-payment even if tenants are simply refusing to pay, and also guarantees that owners will be unable to ever recover any unpaid rent. Combine this with a later provision which prohibits any credit reporting for non-payment of rent, there is little financial incentive pay rent.
Just Cause Eviction Provisions
The bill also provides for certain “just cause” eviction protections to tenants. Just cause (the Jim Brooks Rent Stabilization bill) has been on tenant group’s wish list for some time now, and has been rejected across the board for the last several years. Under the bill, landlords can only evict for “just cause” if:
The tenant has materially violated an obligation or covenant of the tenancy or occupancy, other than the obligation to surrender possession upon proper notice, and has failed to cure such violation within 30 days after having received written notice thereof from the owner;
The tenant is committing a nuisance in the unit, is permitting a nuisance to exist in the unit, is causing substantial damage to the unit or is creating a substantial interference with the quiet enjoyment of other occupants;
The tenant is using or permitting the unit to be used for any illegal purpose.
Non-payment of rent unrelated to financial hardship due to COVID-19
With the just cause protections in place, rental property owners would be effectively prohibited from evicting tenants on a “no-fault” basis, such as holding over past the lease term or refusing a rental increase.
Rental Increase Freeze
The bill effectively imposes an across the board rent increase freeze for the duration of the COVID-19 Emergency plus 12 months after it is lifted. So there can be no rent increase whatsoever on *any* tenant regardless of whether they are affected by COVID-19. This will effectively stop landlords from agreeing to defer rent as an accommodation to financial hardship and enter into a payment plan that recovers the deferred rent through a new lease with a higher payment. And as noted above, there is no other mechanism for a landlord to have an enforceable agreement to recover any unpaid rent. This is true even if the tenant is completely amenable to it, because any such agreement is declared to be contrary to public policy and unenforceable. So the existing Moratorium, which purportedly required continued payment of rent and encouraged payment plans, is now meaningless – any such payment plan is now null and void.
Housing Stability and Recovery Fund
The bill sets up a Housing Stability and Recovery Fund, but provides no specific funding for it whatsoever. This Fund is to provide assistance to owners who were “unable to pay housing and housing-related costs” due to COVID-19. It is unclear what “housing and housing-related costs” mean, but it clearly does not mean that the money (if any) can be used to reimburse landlords for unpaid rent. At best, it might allow some payments to landlords if they were “unable” to pay taxes, insurance, maintenance, mortgage because of COVID.
The bill also requires an Oversight Board that comprises “members of the Legislature’s coronavirus working groups” – not clear who that is — who then select 8 people from communities hardest hit, considering race/ethnic/income impacts. I must have missed rental property owners from this list.
Foreclosure Relief
Similar to the existing Moratorium Act, the bill provides for foreclosure relief. However it does contain a poison pill of sorts. While the bill extends mortgage forbearance to non-owner-occupied if owned by a non-profit or a small landlord (15 or fewer residential “apartments”), it requires anyone who obtains mortgage forbearance, whether owner-occupied or small landlord, “must forever waive and hold harmless tenants from the obligation to pay that month’s rent for each rental unit located on the property” In other words, if you need mortgage forbearance because *some* tenants are not paying and you can’t cover the mortgage, you must *waive all rent from all of the other tenants in that property* as well. Seems rather draconian.
Impact to Rental Property Owners
While we all realize that the Covid-19 crisis has caused unprecedented financial hardship for many tenants, it has also created unprecedented financial hardship for small landlords as well. The fundamental problem with the first Moratorium and this new bill is that it does not FUND what it seeks to accomplish. Without adequate funding, this bill simply shifts the economic devastation from tenants to small rental property owners who are in no better position to undertake millions of dollars in losses. Moreover, a 12+ month long Moratorium would raise significant constitutional problems, as has been raised in the recently filed legal challenge to the original Moratorium. It’s not an exaggeration to say that this bill would be a total and complete disaster to the rental housing market, and ultimately would hurt both tenants and small rental housing providers.
I will continue to update you with developments on this bill.
Rental Property Owners File Emergency Petition with Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Asserting COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium Act Is Unconstitutional
Attorney Richard D. Vetstein and his colleague, Jordana Roubicek Greenman, Esq., have filed an Emergency Petition with the Supreme Judicial Court on behalf of two local rental property owners challenging the constitutionality of the recently passed, Act Providing For a Moratorium On Evictions and Foreclosures During the COVID-19 Emergency and the its regulations. A copy of the Petition can be viewed below.
One of the plaintiffs is a elderly woman on a fixed income whose tenant owes her over $6,000 in back rent and told her “The Governor says I don’t have to pay my rent anymore.” She risks bankruptcy and foreclosure if something isn’t done. The other plaintiff has a non-payment eviction in progress in Worcester Housing Court, and is owed several months of rent with no likelihood of any payment while the Act suspends his case.
As outlined in the Petition, the Eviction Moratorium Act imposes an unprecedented and indefinite shutdown of virtually every future and pending eviction case in the state, as well as prohibiting landlords from even issuing notices to quit. The Petitioners, two local rental property owners saddled with non-paying tenants whom they cannot evict, claim irreparable harm on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated rental property owners across the state. The Petitioners assert the Act is an unconstitutional infringement on their constitutional right to access the courts and right to petition. They also claim the Act is an unconstitutional interference by the Legislature on the core functions of the courts. Further, the Act operates as a “taking” without just compensation because it forces rental property owners to house non-paying tenants without any recourse. Lastly, the Petitioners argue the Act violates the U.S. Constitution’s Contracts Clause as it unconstitutionally impairs their lease agreements.
The operation of the Act obligates rental property owners to pay their own mortgages, real estate taxes, insurance, and water/sewer used by non-paying tenants, and to maintain their properties and comply with the state sanitary code, while being effectively deprived of the revenue required to do those things. Given the unpredictable nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, this one-sided obligation and burden will continue indefinitely and quite possibly into 2021. Many small rental property owners, especially those on fixed income, rely on rents to afford to live in their own homes.
The Supreme Judicial Court is expected to take up the case next week, and will hopefully schedule it for hearing. I will provide you with updates of course.
Attorney General Healy Announces Indictments Against Allen Seymour and Ex-Wife
As I’ve written here before, I have been representing three families victimized by convicted felon, Allen Seymour, in a brazen complex real estate forgery scam. As a result of the courageous testimony from my clients, I’m happy to report that a statewide Grand Jury has just handed down a 22 count indictment against Seymour on charges of forgery, uttering, larceny, and money laundering. Seymour’s ex-wife, Tina Seymour, was also charged with conspiracy to commit forgery.
Seymour, who used the alias “Richard Chase,” targeted elderly and unsophisticated homeowners. He used forged deeds and fake notary stamps to sell their properties out from under them, flipping them to wealthy investors, and pocketing the cash. Seymour targeted properties in Cambridge, Brookline, and Somerville. As claimed in my lawsuits, Seymour also worked with a group of accomplices including Newton police lieutenant, Francis Foley III, who was not indicted but remains under investigation and on paid leave from the force.
Allen Seymour fled the state and was apprehended in South Carolina in May, and is currently being held without bail pending probation surrender hearing scheduled for a later date. He will appear in Worcester Superior Court on Jan. 7, 2019 for a hearing regarding his probation surrender. Tina Seymour will be arraigned in Hampden Superior Court at a later date.
I have filed three civil actions in Middlesex Superior Court, seeking to quiet title and restore ownership to the victims. The cases are ongoing.
First American Title Company has issued a statewide Fraud Agent Alert concerning this scheme.
New Judges to Serve Expanded Statewide Jurisdiction
In the 2018 Fiscal Year budget, the jurisdiction of the Housing Court expanded to full state-wide coverage, and with it, the Legislature created five new judgeships. Earlier this week, Governor Charlie Baker nominated five attorneys as new Associate Justices to the Housing Court:
Donna T. Salvidio of Worcester nominated as a Circuit Justice Neil K. Sherring of Westwood nominated as a Circuit Justice Joseph L. Michaud of Dartmouth nominated to the Metro South Division Irene Bagdoian of Westborough nominated to the Metro South Division Gustavo A. del Puerto of Salem nominated to the Northeastern Division
Each judge must be approved by the Governor’s Council before stepping onto the bench. While I do not know all the nominees personally, this group appears to have very solid experience and background. I look forward to seeing them before the Governor’s Council and hopefully on the bench.
Donna Salvidio currently leads the Condominium Law Practice Group within the Real Estate department at Fletcher Tilton PC in Worcester. Click here for her Firm Biography. Her work covers a full spectrum of real estate related matters, with particular emphasis on residential housing law, condominium law, property management, commercial leasing and transactional work. She has over 27 years of experience in residential housing law including landlord-tenant law and the development of affordable housing. Attorney Salvidio served as Board President of Worcester Community Housing Resources, Inc., a non-profit which creates and preserves affordable housing opportunities for low to moderate income households, and is currently a member of its Property Development and Management Committee. She also served on the Housing Court Committee of the Worcester County Bar Association and was a Commissioner of the Worcester Civic Center Commission for 10 years. Attorney Salvidio received her Bachelor’s Degree cum laude in Psychology from the University of Vermont and her Juris Doctor cum laude from Suffolk University Law School where she served as an editor of the Suffolk University Law Review. She currently resides in Worcester, Massachusetts.
Neil Sherring has 25 years of experience practicing law. Since 2001, he has been a partner in his own law firm Dakoyannis & Sherring, LLC, where he concentrates on landlord tenant and real estate related cases, personal injury claims, insurance disputes, and employment discrimination claims. Previously, he was a trial attorney at Mintz, Levin. Attorney Sherring also has a wealth of experience representing the Commonwealth as an Assistant Attorney General, Assistant District Attorney for the Northwestern District of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Superior Court Law Clerk and Hearing Officer for the Division of Insurance. He has served as the Deputy Commissioner of the State Athletic Commission and has been a frequent lecturer at Suffolk University and Curry College. Within his community, he is a current Board Member of the Westwood Community Chest, where he has also served as President and Vice President. He earned his Bachelor’s Degree from Curry College and his Juris Doctorate from Suffolk University Law School. He resides in Westwood with his family.
Joseph Michaud has been practicing law for 25 years. He is currently an attorney partner at his own practice, the Law Offices of Joseph L. Michaud, where he specializes in residential and commercial real estate transactions and landlord-tenant matters. Attorney Michaud is also a decorated member of the United States Army, having served on active duty intermittently for the last 30 years as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Judge Advocates General Corps. He first enlisted as a Tanker in 1986, and went on to serve in both Desert Storm and Operation Noble Eagle. Attorney Michaud has earned 3 Meritorious Service Medals, 6 Army Commendations, a Joint Service Achievement Medal, a National Defense Medal, a Global War on Terrorism Medal, and an Outstanding Volunteer Medal. Attorney Michaud continues to serve his local community as Chair of the South Coast Chamber of Commerce in New Bedford and as a Board Member of the Veterans’ Transition House. He graduated with his Bachelor’s Degree from University of Massachusetts in Amherst and received a Master’s of Arts from Sam Houston State University. He earned his Juris Doctorate from the Franklin Pierce Law Center at the University of New Hampshire. Attorney Michaud is a lifelong resident of Dartmouth, MA. In his spare time, you can find him playing bass guitar in a local band.
Irene Bagdoian has practiced law in the Commonwealth for nearly thirty years. During the last decade, she has been a solo legal practitioner at her own law firm in Brockton, representing individuals and businesses in civil litigation matters related to housing, foreclosure, real estate, and consumer protection. She was one of the founders of the Brockton Housing Court Lawyer for the Day Program, which provides advice to unrepresented landlords and tenants, and has organized educational programming for volunteer lawyer programs in collaboration with the Southeastern Housing Court for the past nine years. Attorney Bagdoian is a member of the Steering Committee for the Tenancy Preservation Program and a Board Member of the Justice Center of Southeast MA. She graduated with her Bachelor’s Degree from Wheaton College in Norton, MA and received her Juris Doctorate from Boston University School of Law. She resides in Westborough with her husband, Paul Sangree.
Gustavo del Puerto has nearly 25 years practicing law in Massachusetts. He currently serves as Assistant Clerk Magistrate in the Northeast Housing Court. Prior to that, he practiced as a Senior Associate at Sassoon & Cymrot in Boston where he focused on commercial litigation, including the resolution of contract, business, and construction disputes, tort matters and the protection of creditors’ rights. Attorney del Puerto served as Counsel for the Chelsea Commission on Hispanic Affairs, Inc., where he also provided pro-bono work for immigration law. Attorney del Puerto earned his Bachelor of Arts from the College of the Holy Cross, and his Juris Doctorate from Northeastern University’s School of Law. He currently resides in Salem, MA.
“From the Assessor’s Office” — A New Regular Column by Jonathan Steinberg, MAA, MACR, Chief Assessor, Town of Westborough
Along with the celebration of the holidays comes the moment of truth when communities with quarterly tax billing send out the new Fiscal Year’s tax bills. Often there is an emotional response of frustration and anger. However, take a deep breath before contacting the Assessor’s office and ask yourself two questions: “Is it my assessment that’s too high or are my taxes simply too high? Could I sell my house for the assessed value?” If your assessment seems reasonable, but you think your taxes are too high, my recommendation is to go vote at Town Meeting or contact your City Councilmen, and get involved in your local government. Don’t contact your Assessor. If your assessment is too high, it’s worth considering filing for an abatement.
There are a few things to know before picking up the phone to call the Assessor’s Office.
Most importantly, applications for abatement must be postmarked by February 1st . After that deadline, the Board of Assessors has no authority to grant abatements for the Fiscal Year.
How are real estate taxes calculated and what do these bills represent?
The Fiscal Year begins on July 1st and runs until June 30th. The first two tax bills received on July 1st and October 1st are preliminary tax bills based upon the prior year’s values and tax rate. The new Fiscal Year’s assessments are set in the fall, the community determines if there will be a split or single rate and a tax rate set by mid-December. The tax bills sent by January 1st represent the Actual bills for the Fiscal year. These bills use the new Fiscal Year’s assessment and tax rate to determine the total year’s taxes due. The preliminary amounts are subtracted. The remaining amount is divided by two for the third and fourth quarters. This calculation results in the four quarters not being the same.
Ex. Fiscal 2017 assessment of $450,000 and rate of $17.80/$1000
Many take the recent tax bill just received, multiply by four. In the example above, that would represent an increase of $720.00. You can take some consolation in that the next July’s bill should be less than the bills just received.
Understanding Your Assessment
Assessed values for Fiscal 2018 are as of January 1st, 2017. They are based upon the calendar 2016 sales of similar properties. The property that sold in your neighborhood last month is not considered in the current assessments. Unlike a “Fee Appraisal” for a mortgage, Assessor’s utilize “Mass Appraisal”. Assessors analyze an entire year’s sales, looking at assessment to sales ratios and different property characteristics. The analysis compares similar properties comparing factors such as size, location, style, age, quality and condition. Utilizing a CAMA (Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal) system, they apply this analysis equitably across all the properties in Town. The effectiveness of this relies on accurate data to evaluate that people paid X for Y.
A word of caution, before proceeding. When filing for an abatement, assessments can go up if errors are found that need to be corrected.
Procedures for Filing an Abatement
The first step is to get a copy of your property record card and review the information for accuracy. Look at the measurements and details such as acreage, bath count, fireplaces, finished basement, central air, etc. Next, review the grade rating, quality and condition of the dwelling compared to other similar properties. It is key to look only at similar properties. Don’t compare your newer colonial to a 1950’s cape. Inequitable valuation is a difficult case to support since the same valuation model is applied to all properties. If there are differences in value between you and your neighbor, it will be the result of differences in data. Correct or incorrect.
Don’ts:
Don’t cherry pick sales and properties throwing out anything that doesn’t support your argument. Assessor’s won’t overlook these. If other properties need correction, it doesn’t make your property value wrong.
Don’t compare your newer colonial to a 1950’s cape. Even if the property is next door, similar properties need to be compared. If you find data errors, filing for an abatement may be worth your time.
Don’t simply divide the assessment by the living area and compare $/square foot. This is not an accurate comparison. Factors are not linear. This calculation does not take into account differences in acreage and interior details.
Don’t bring a Zillow value into the Assessor’s office as support. Zillow can be a decent tool for lists of sales, but it falls short when it comes to analysis. Any information provided from online sources should be evaluated independently rather than relying on their values. There are simply too many variables that impact value that can’t be captured by these sites. Information about comparable sales can also be found through brokers or in the Assessor’s office.
Don’t bring in a bank appraisal that was done on your property within the last six months. It will use comparables that are after the January 1, 2017 effective date of the assessment.
Don’t refuse an inspection.
Do’s:
Fill out the application completely and submit it prior to the deadline.
Clearly explain any issues with the data on the record card.
Select and present comparable sales that are prior to the January 1, 2017 effective date of this assessment.
Select comparable sales that are actually comparable. They should be similar location, age, style, size etc.
Provide a reasonable opinion of value that is supported by your explanation.
Make yourself available for an inspection within the schedule of the Assessor’s. While you are never required to allow Assessor’s into your property, denying an inspection when applying for an abatement can almost guarantee a denial regardless of the reason for application. Don’t delay the inspection. Bear in mind, that this is something you have applied for so do your best to be accommodating for the Assessor’s inspection schedule.
After the Board of Assessors has acted on your application and you’ve received notice, if still unhappy with the outcome, the next step is an appeal to the Appellate Tax Board.
In closing, remember the February 1st filing deadline, assessments can go up if other errors are found(review your record card carefully), and go back and review the “Don’ts” above before sending in your application.
Jonathan Steinberg, MAA, MACR, is the Chief Assessor, Town of Westborough
The views contained in this article are the personal views of the author, not the Town of Westborough or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Many Titles Automatically Cleared As Of Dec. 31, 2016
While 2016 may have been a tough year for some, the new year brings some relief to those affected by foreclosure related title defects. For some homeowners saddled with bad titles due to improper foreclosures, when the Times Square ball dropped, their titles defects magically disappeared under The Act Clearing Title to Foreclosed Properties. They are now free to sell or refinance after waiting many years in most cases.
The Act, now codified in Mass. General Laws Chapter 244, section 15, was enacted by Gov. Charlie Baker last year in an effort to minimize the impact of several troublesome SJC rulings which cast doubt on titles coming out of foreclosures, including the seminal case of U.S. Bank v. Ibanez. The Act, which I testified in support of at the State House, establishes a new three year statute of limitations for challenging foreclosures and clears titles with foreclosures conducted prior to Dec. 31, 2013, unless the homeowner brought a lawsuit and records it with the Registry of Deeds.
Practice Pointer: Under the Act, any defective title stemming from a foreclosure completed prior to Dec. 31, 2013 is now cured, provided there is no legal challenge filed and complaint recorded with the Registry of Deeds and no other statutory exemption applies. Speak to your title underwriter or consult an attorney for guidance.
Covered Time Period
The Act establishes a three-year statute of limitations period to bring a challenge to a foreclosure. To timely bring a challenge, an aggrieved homeowner must file lawsuit challenging the validity of the foreclosure sale, and must also record a copy of the lawsuit in the registry of deeds before the limitations period expires. The Act reaffirms the mortgagee affidavit requirements of the foreclosure law, including the provision that the recording of a valid affidavit is “evidence that the power of sale was duly executed.” The Act also provides that after three years from the date that the foreclosing lender records a validly executed affidavit, the affidavit serves as “conclusive evidence” that the power of sale was duly executed.
Retroactive Application
The Act applies retroactively. To address constitutionality concerns, for mortgagee affidavits recorded prior to December 31, 2015, the statute of limitations period is the longer of the full three-year period or one year from the effective date of the Act, December 31, 2015. Thus, by the terms of the Act, for all foreclosures completed prior to December 31, 2013, the deadline to assert and record a challenge was December 31, 2016. For foreclosures completed between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2015, the three year statute of limitations runs from the date of the foreclosure.
No Relief to REO/Fannie Mae Owned Properties, But….
The Act does not apply to mortgagees, noteholders, servicers, their affiliates, or government entities like the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) that continue to hold title to properties following foreclosure sales. The Act only applies “arm’s length third party purchasers for value,” defined as a party who either (1) purchased the property directly at the foreclosure sale, or (2) purchased the property from the bank or another entity at some point after the foreclosure sale, to the extent the power of sale was not duly exercised.” While foreclosing parties, noteholders, and mortgagees will not benefit directly from the Act on properties that they own or service, they will benefit from the resolution of title disputes, the insurability of properties they formerly owned or foreclosed, and the validity of mortgages that they currently service.
Broader Applicability?
The Legislature clearly intended for the Act to resolve title defects arising out of the Ibanez case. But the Act, as drafted, is not limited to just Ibanez defects. It could also be applied to defects arising out of other SJC rulings, including Eaton (promissory note status), Pinti (cure notice) and Schumacher (cure notice). Because the Act is retroactive and silent as to what specific title issues it resolves, a recorded mortgagee affidavit could cure many other issues aside from Ibanez issues. We will see how title underwriters and the courts apply the Act in the months to come. As always, the best practice is to get your title underwriter’s opinion in an email and place in your file.
Landlord Stopped From Evicting Tenant Over $3.26 In Interest
Massachusetts has a well-deserved reputation as being a hostile jurisdiction for landlords. With a myriad of tenant favorable laws on the books, the proverbial playing field is often stacked against landlords. Exhibit A is the Security Deposit Law which provides a three month penalty, including payment of the tenant’s legal fees, against landlords who don’t follow its strict requirements.
One of the requirements of the Security Deposit Law is that annually the landlord must pay the tenant any accrued interest on the deposit. That’s what got landlord Garth Meikle in trouble with his tenant who was three months behind in rent.
Garth Meikle v. Patricia Nurse, SJC-11859
Meikle brought an eviction case in the Housing Court, and essentially won with the judge ordering the tenant to pay the past due rent, but deducting the security deposit plus the three dollars and change in interest. However, to the tenant’s rescue came the crusading Harvard law students from Harvard Legal Aid Bureau. Representing her for free, the students have taken her case all the way up to the Supreme Judicial Court. (Why is it that landlords are not offered the same free legal aid?). The tenant posted an appeal bond so she’s allowed to stay in the apartment while paying the rent during the pendency of the case.
The SJC heard arguments this morning with third year Harvard Law student Louis Fisher arguing the case. (Damn lucky kid!).
The Harvard tenant lawyers are advancing the dangerous argument that a landlord who violates the security deposit law — even in the most minor of circumstances — cannot evict a non-paying tenant.
Scary right? If the Court accepts this argument then tenants will have yet another powerful tool to avoid eviction. The Security Deposit Law is so strict that most landlords make minor errors in holding the deposit. That’s why I have advised that landlords don’t even bother taking security deposits in the first place.
You can guess where I stand on the merits of the case. The security deposit is a separate financial matter between the landlord and tenant which has nothing to do about whether the tenant owes rent or the condition of the property. Those are the two primary issues in a non-payment eviction case. You don’t pay the rent without legal defense, you’re out. Period. Compliance with the security deposit law should have no bearing on a non-payment eviction. The Legislature did not intend otherwise, and regardless, that should not be our policy. Enough is enough already.
You know what else bothers me? These legal aid organizations take on these “test cases” to train law students and get them experience. After all when does a law student ever get to argue a SJC case? Is that really fair and just to small unrepresented landlords like Mr. Meikle who told the justices that his son and fiancee were hoping to live in the apartment?
The SJC should come out with a final ruling in the next few months. Check back here for future developments. In the meantime, I will keep on fighting the good fight for landlords.
Elizabeth Gerhman, a writer for the Boston Globe Magazine and owner of two rental units, is fed up with how the Massachusetts legal system favors tenants over landlords.
“In just five years as a rental, the other [unit] — which has hardwood floors, granite countertops, and a $1,200 dishwasher — has been a nightmare, with tenants who bounced checks, didn’t pay their rent, and threatened to call the building inspector over, among other things, a loose toilet seat, a missing outlet cover, and, I’m not kidding, a bedroom that is allegedly 0.389 of an inch too small. The tenant who detailed these horrific, slum-like conditions also threatened to take me to court over some food that had spoiled when the refrigerator broke — which is what prompted the intimidation tactics in the first place.”
As landlord groups have been arguing for years, one of the major problems with the current system is that Massachusetts has no rent escrow law. Under the present system, a tenant can withhold months of rent for any cosmetic or minor problem with the unit until the eviction case is resolved, leaving the landlord unable to pay their mortgage. We call that the “free rent trick.” As Ms. Gerhman correctly points out, “with an average judgment of about three months’ rent, this can be a real hardship for house-poor landlords. And once a landlord does evict a tenant who owes back rent, he or she must pay to move the tenant’s belongings out of the apartment in addition to three months’ storage costs.” As I was quoted in the article, many landlords opt for “cash for keys” deals to avoid huge losses during an eviction.
A rent escrow law would require any tenant who withholds rent to simply pay it into an escrow account until the unsafe conditions or code violations are repaired and the eviction case is resolved. After repairs are done, either the landlord and tenant agree on how the escrowed rent should be divided, or a judge orders a fair settlement. The “free rent trick” would be gone and landlords less likely to get left holding the money bag.
Sounds fair? Tell that to your state legislators who have been sitting on rent escrow bills for over a decade.
New rent escrow bills return to the Legislature this session as House Bill 1654 sponsored by Rep. Chris Walsh and House Bill 1112 sponsored by Rep. Brad Jones. Both bills are expected to get hearings at the State House this spring. I will keep you posted.
Personally, I think a fair legislative compromise would be for landlord groups to support the Housing Court Expansion bill under the condition that a Rent Escrow Bill is passed along with it. That would be a win-win for both sides.
In the meantime, please email and call your local state rep and senator and tell him or her you are in favor of these bills. If you have any tenant horror stories, make sure you include those as well. Also, consider joining your local chapter of the Massachusetts Rental Housing Association or Masslandlords.net. Both organizations will be coordinating legislative efforts on the rent escrow bill and other landlord legislation. Lastly, please share this article and the Globe Magazine article on your Facebook pages, Twitter feeds and email blasts!
One of the perks of writing this blog is that I get called by business reporters from around the country who think I know a thing or two about real estate law. While that proposition is certainly debatable, this week I was contacted by a very nice reporter from the Wall Street Journal who was doing a story about luxury homeowners falling into foreclosure. Here is a link to the article (in which I was quoted).
WSJ reporter, Annamaria Andriotis, found some data supporting her theory that due to the unique economics involved with the luxury home market (i.e., less buyers, more expensive to maintain), lenders are less likely to foreclose upon properties over $1 Million.
Lenders can be more willing to craft a new payment plan to make high-dollar homes more affordable. Paperwork and procedures are also often delayed, keeping homeowners in some states in their homes for two or more years after they’ve stopped making mortgage payments. And in some cases, lenders are offering homeowners tens of thousands of dollars in cash in exchange for their agreeing to a short sale, in which a home is sold for less than the borrower owes on the mortgage.
Repossession rates show the difference. Last year, roughly 85% of homes worth up to $1 million that received default notices were eventually repossessed, according to RealtyTrac, which tracks real-estate data. For homes worth more than $1 million, about 28%, or around 1,400 homes, were repossessed.
I have to assume that Massachusetts is not unique in this respect. Realtor John McGeough of McGeough & LaMacchia says he’s seen an increased in short sale activity for million-plus dollar homes in towns like Weston, Wellesley, Brookline, Newton, Gloucester, North Andover, South Natick, Sudbury, Concord, Sherborn, and Needham. McGeough reports that JP Morgan Chase paid one of his distressed clients $30,000 to do a short sale. Talk about cash for keys!
I don’t think there is any class warfare or real discrimination going on here. It’s simply dollars and sense. It’s more expensive for banks to foreclose and hold onto a million dollar property as opposed to working out a better deal with the borrower.
The Boston City Council and Mayor Menino’s Office have passed a sweeping new rental property registration and inspection ordinance which is now effective for the year 2013. The new ordinance requires, among other things, that all rental property owners register with the Inspectional Services Department (ISD), and are subject to inspections every 5 years. Details of the new ordinance are summarized below.
Who is covered?
All rental property owners, regardless of state residence, must register their rental properties with ISD. This also includes condominium units which are rented out. Excluded from the inspection requirements (but not the registration requirements) are owner-occupied buildings containing no more than 6 units, licensed lodging houses, government owned or operated housing.
What are my registration obligations?
Landlords are required to register with ISD no later than July 1 of each year. A fee of $25/unit will be charged. All non-resident owners must designate a Boston-based resident agent to accept service of process on the owner’s behalf. You can now register online at Cityofboston.gov or download an application from the same site. The City has also posted a Frequently Asked Questions Page here.
When will my rental property get inspected?
ISD will inspect rental properties at least once every 5 years. ISD intends to first inspect the “problem” properties which have a history of code violations. Landlords will receive a notice from ISD about the inspection. Landlords have the option of having an outside “authorized inspector” perform the inspection at the owner’s expense. Annual inspections conducted by the Boston Housing Authority (BHA) and similar government programs will be accepted by ISD. For most buildings, the inspection fee is $75 for the first two units, and $50/unit thereafter.
Are there any new signage requirements?
Yes. A sign of not less than 20 square inches must be posted adjacent to the building’s mailboxes or other conspicuous location. The sign must contain the contact information of the landlord and property manager, if any.
My property has been cited for violations in the past. Will this be a problem?
It could be. The new ordinance has a new classification for “Problem Property” if:
the police have been called to the property at least 4 times in one year; or
4 or more noise complaints; or
4 or more ISD complaints for unsanitary conditions/code violations
Problem Properties must be inspected every year and the owner must submit a management plan to address the issues.
How do I coordinate the inspection with my tenants?
A tenant is entitled to “reasonable advance notice” before an inspection. If access is denied, the landlord must notify ISD within 7 days, and if ISD verifies same, the landlord will be exempted from inspection for 1 year. Tenants are entitled to a copy of all inspection reports.
I am buying a rental property. By when does the new owner need to register?
ISD must be notified of the sale of any rental property 30 days after the closing, and the new owner must register with ISD within this 30 day window. Within 90 days of closing, the new owner must complete any pending inspection or submit an application for approval of an alternative inspection plan.
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.
Hey there. I recently had an opportunity to shoot a video about myself and my philosophy. I’d like to share it with you. I’m not the best in front of the camera, but I’m working on it. Video is quickly replacing the written word. Of course, as you know, writing and blogging is much more comfortable for me than being all “Hollywood.”
The video director asked me what makes me different than other real estate attorneys? Well first, I grew up around real estate, tagging along with my mom to open houses. She was a Realtor in the Metrowest Mass. area for 25 years. I did my homework at her realty office when MLS printed off a dot matrix printer. I knew what a “P&S” agreement was at age 8. Real estate is in my blood.
Second, I’m what I like to call “ultra-responsive.” Real estate is a 24/7 business, and the attorney who doesn’t get that, well, doesn’t get it. I’m available whenever my Realtors, loan officers and clients need me — via text, email, phone, fax, even Facebook and Twitter.
I love what I do. Everyday I get to help people buy, sell, finance and resolve disputes involving their real estate. It’s incredibly rewarding. One day I’ll help a young couple with a baby purchase their first home. Another day I’ll navigate a client through the complex Massachusetts court system. I also help folks start new businesses, counsel them on employment issues, and other legal stuff for small businesses like mine.
If you like this video and want one for yourself, shoot me an email. I’m very friendly with the gentleman who owns the video company.
MCLE (Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education) is holding their popular Real Estate Law Annual Conference on April 7, 2011, at 9:00AM at their offices located at 10 Winter Place, Boston, MA. You can also attend the conference virtually through their webcast on www.mcle.org.
I’m honored to be presenting at the conference on what else but — “Technology Update: Learn How To Leverage Cutting-Edge Technology To Streamline Your Practice.” Real estate tech experts, Jim Sifflard from First American Title, and George Warshaw, Esq. are presenting with me. There are also great sessions on Title Claims, Condominium Law, Ethical Issues and Environmental Concerns.
I put together my first YouTube video, and thought a good topic would be the impact of the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case on the foreclosure and REO market. The case underscores the necessity of obtaining an owner’s policy of title insurance for any REO transaction, and really any conventional transaction for that matter. Appreciate any feedback, good or bad. I’m no Ryan Seacrest obviously!
Since we’ve written about the case extensively here, Steve asked for my views about the impact of the case and recent matters I’ve handled with Ibanez title defects:
Framingham real estate attorney Richard Vetstein recently represented a family who had bought a house out of foreclosure about a year ago, then invested in excess of $100,000 in improvements to the property with the intention of selling it to their daughter. But before they could complete the sale, a title issue came up and put the transaction on hold.
In Vetstein’s client’s case, when the original owner was foreclosed upon, the mortgage company did not have a properly recorded assignment. To clear the title, Vetstein had to track down the original owner in Alabama, and persuade him to sign over the deed to the property.
“They can close now that the title issue is solved, but in a lot of cases that [is] not going to be able to be solved,” said Vetstein. “We were lucky, that’s what it came down to.”
Steve asked me how I would handicap the appeal of the case:
Vetstein, who has blogged on the Ibanez case at length, thinks the court might uphold the Ibanez decision.
“Given the current constitution of the court and their tendencies of recent years to be kind of moving towards some pro-consumer decisions, I wouldn’t be surprised if they upheld the land court probably by a slim margin,” Vetstein said. “And so for people who are stuck with an Ibanez issue, that is in essence the worst-case scenario.”
Indeed, it’s unlikely that a “pro-consumer” verdict upholding the Ibanez decision would actually help consumers on the whole. Home buyers or investors who thought they had gotten a good deal and a clean title on a foreclosed property will instead be saddled with hefty legal bills and an inability to sell their property.
Lastly, Steve asked if the Ibanez ruling has created an business development opportunties for real estate attorneys:
“I don’t know of any real estate attorney using Ibanez as a business development opportunity, mainly because solving these title defects, if at all, is incredibly difficult and in some cases impossible,” Vetstein said. “It’s a ‘lose-lose’ in many situations.”
One aspect of the case could potentially provide plenty of work for attorneys. Should the SJC uphold the Ibanez decision, Vetstein reasons that there will be many claims against the foreclosing lenders and the foreclosure attorney, for failing to convey good title.
“There will also be claims for rescission of these transactions,” he added. “There is a class action against lenders and foreclosing attorneys which could encompass many millions in potential damages.”
Banker & Tradesman is a great publication. If you don’t want a paid subscription, you can follow them on Twitter and Facebook.
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is regarded as one of the leading real estate attorneys in Massachusetts. With over 25 years in practice, he is a four time winner of the "Top Lawyer" award by Boston Magazine, a "Super Lawyer" designation from Thompson/West, and "Best of Metrowest." For Rich's professional biography, click here. If you are interested in hiring Rich or have a legal question, email or call him at [email protected] or 508-620-5352.
