In a previous post we highlighted that landlords of non-owner-occupied properties must navigate both specific Massachusetts landlord-tenant laws and Chapter 93A. A recent case, Pennetti v. Beauregard, reaffirmed this when the Appeals Court of Massachusetts upheld a Housing Court judgment in favor of tenants on their Chapter 93A counterclaim. 

The case began when the landlord sought to evict tenants from a three-family unit. In response, the tenants stopped paying rent and counterclaimed, alleging that the landlord (1) retaliated against them for complaining about cross-metering electricity, (2) breached the warranty of habitability, and (3) violated Chapter 93A. The latter two claims were based on defects in the common areas and the landlord’s failure to replace a door damaged from an attempted break-in, which was temporarily covered with “a plywood board secured with only a ‘slide chain’ inside the apartment” for over 30 days. The Housing Court ruled in favor of the tenants, offsetting their unpaid rent against the damages awarded and allowing them to retain possession of the apartment. 

The Appeals Court agreed, noting that the landlord’s failure to make timely repairs breached the implied warranty of habitability. Moreover, not addressing sanitary code violations within a reasonable time after notice was deemed an unfair and deceptive business practice under Chapter 93A, § 2. The longstanding defects in the common area and inadequate repair of the entry door violated the sanitary code, establishing the landlord’s willful and knowing misconduct. Consequently, this justified imposing double damages on the tenants’ chapter 93A counterclaim. 

This case underscores the importance of understanding the laws governing landlord-tenant rights and an individual’s rights and obligations under those laws.