Hey, there! Log in / Register

Court overturns damages against landlord who tried to get tenants fired

The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled today that Housing Court is the wrong place to consider a complaint by two Roxbury tenants that their landlord reacted to a rent dispute by badmouthing them to congregants at the church where they work as custodians - and by trying to get them fired by strewing trash on the church floors to make it seem like they weren't doing their jobs.

The court did uphold the tenants' withholding of nearly four months' worth of rent for the landlord's failure to fix problems in the apartment, notably failing to fix a hole above the kitchen sink and to provide locks on the door to first-floor apartment in the two-family home in which both landlord and tenants lived.

The tenants are employed as custodians at a church to which the landlord belongs. The tenants testified that "[the landlord] has been going throughout the congregation, speaking to other members regarding this incident.... Members have come and questioned [one tenant] about [his] private business, which has been told to them by [the landlord]." According to the tenants, the landlord would come into the church after they had finished cleaning and place trash on the floors to make it look like the tenants had failed to clean the church.

However, the court overturned the $3,600 in damages a Housing Court judge levied against Donald Kelly, noting that none of this happened at the rental unit:

However distressing these actions by the landlord may have been to the tenants, such conduct did not amount to interference with their quiet enjoyment of the premises they were renting. According to the judge's findings and our own review of the hearing transcript, the landlord's conduct did not occur on or near the premises and was unrelated to their physical condition. Nor did the judge make a finding that the landlord's conduct impaired the character or value of the leased premises. Absent such findings or other evidence in the record, on these facts the judge erred in holding that the landlord interfered with the tenants' right to quiet enjoyment.

The judges added this does not mean they were taking a position on any action the tenants might take in another court over the behavior.

Neighborhoods: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!