Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Citation
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Parent Document
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2009-10-15
Other Sections in This Document (34)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
Full Text
1,099 charsTo supply a mechanism for determining noncompliance, the Castenholz court construed § 15B(6)(a) as a provision containing two components. The first component was, quite obviously, the forfeiture provision. In the court’s words, “[s]ubsection (3)(a) establishes the duty to place the security deposit in an escrow account. Subsection (6){a) declares a forfeiture of the landlord’s right to retain the security deposit if he has failed to comply with the specified duty imposed on him by subsection (3)(a).” Castenholz, 21 Mass. App. Ct. at 762. The second component focused on when the forfeiture became effective. There the court held that the tenant’s demand for return of the deposit was the triggering event and that a “violation of subsection (6) (a) occurs if the landlord fails to return the deposit when *415requested.” Ibid. Finally, the court held that the treble damage provision of § 15B(7) only came into play if the landlord violated § 15B(6)(«) by failing to respond to the tenant’s demand for return of the deposit, thereby forcing the tenant to “resort to litigation.”9 Id. at 763.10