Massachusetts, one of the most tenant-friendly states in the country, prohibits landlords from deducting from a tenant’s security deposit for repairs related to “reasonable wear and tear” under G.L. c. 186, § 15B(4). However, the statute does not define “reasonable wear and tear” and despite its inclusion in the law since 1970, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) had never interpreted it until its August 1, 2025 decision in Peebles v. JRK Property Holdings, Inc., SJC-13702, which significantly reshaped how landlords may approach the use of residential security deposits for property repairs.

Massachusetts landlords commonly deduct the costs of repainting, carpet cleaning, and other refurbishments from newly departed tenants’ security deposits. In Peebles, the SJC determined that “reasonable wear and tear” requires a fact-specific inquiry including review of:

• The nature and cause of the condition to be repaired;
• The condition of the property upon commencement of the lease term;
• The use for which the property was leased;
• The extent of property deterioration to be expected from the reasonable use for such purpose; and
• Duration of the occupancy [i]

Noting that a tenant’s reasonable use of a property may result in the necessity of repainting, carpet cleaning or other repairs or refurbishments upon expiration of the lease, the court held that deducting costs of such repairs and refurbishments from a security deposit may violate the statute.[ii]  However, the SJC declined to set a bright-line rule that without further inquiry security deposit deductions for repairs or refurbishments do not necessarily constitute a violation of G. L. c. 186, § 15B(4).[iii]

However, Peebles delivered a clear warning to landlords regarding lease clauses that require a tenant to professionally clean the premises upon yield-up.  On this issue, the SJC held that such requirements conflict with G. L. c. 186, § 15B(4) and are per se unenforceable.[iv]

The impact of Peebles imbues an already ambiguous area of Massachusetts landlord-tenant law with partial answers.  Going forward, it is likely that courts engaging in fact specific inquiries regarding what constitutes “reasonable wear and tear” will err on the side of tenants.  Note that a judicial determination that a specific deduction violates the statute may result in a tenant’s recovery of up to three times the amount wrongfully withheld under G. L. c. 186, § 15B(7).[v]

Landlords can protect themselves and avoid penalties by: (i) obtaining condition statements at lease commencement; (ii) providing itemized statements to tenants within thirty days of the expiration of the lease detailing the purpose and costs of landlord repairs; (iii) evidencing the necessity of such repairs; and (iv) adhering to other statutory requirements, such as holding the security deposit in a Massachusetts bank, ensuring it is placed in an interest-bearing account, and limiting the deposit to no more than one month’s rent.

Due to the statutory penalties for non-compliance, landlords should consult with experienced counsel as to application of the statute to their circumstances.

[i] Peebles v. JRK Prop. Holdings, Inc., SJC-13702, slip op. at 13.

[ii] Id. at 16.

[iii] Id.

[iv] Id. at 18-20.

[v] Id. at 6.