Court: Landlord can't evade tenant claims by tearing down the building
The Massachusetts Appeals Court today rejected a Hingham landlord's argument that a verdict against him for providing substandard housing was no longer valid because the units have been torn down.
The case centered on a campground whose owner agreed to sell to a developer planning on building condos. The landlord sued two tenants when they stopped paying rent several months before they moved out of their cabins; they counter-sued, arguing he hadn't kept up the property.
Housing Court agreed the landlord was owed the back rent - but that the tenants were owed damages and lawyers' fees for the condition of the property (one was awarded less than the other because he acknowledged the substandard conditions didn't really bother him). On appeal, the landlord argued there was no longer a "present" problem because the cabins no longer existed. The appeals court said, nope, you can't sweep problems under the rug like that.
- Add new comment |
- Send to a friend |
| 
| 
Poor summary
This case was solely about the jurisdiction of the Housing Court, a Massachusetts court of special, limited jurisdiction. The court rejected the landlord's claim that the Housing Court has no jurisdiction where there is no "present problem"--although didn't deny that the tenants could have brought a case for damages against him in a different court.
Still a great decision, as in some cases the choice of court is the whole battle, especially where the tenants were countersuing, rather than being forced to bring their own lawsuit, an expensive and chancy process.
And that's why I'm not a lawyer
You're right, the jurisdictional decision is probably the more important one. But the reason it came up at all was because of the landlord's attempt to invalidate the original finding because the units no longer existed. The appeals-court ruling discusses the headaches that would cause if that were allowed to stand.
By the landlord's logic ...
We should release all murderers because their victims are dead.
Same goes for bookies that go broke.