Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
- Citation
- Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
- Parent Document
- Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 1997-06-27
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8352844/clegg-v-vaughan/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (22)
- Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
- Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
- Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
- Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
- Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
- Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
- Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
- Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
- Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
- Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
- Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
- Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
- Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
- Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
- Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
- Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
- Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
- Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
- Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
- Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
- Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
- Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
Full Text
987 charsIn addition, the report cites as a violation the lack of lighting of the stairs in the rear of the unit. However, the only testimony before this Court suggests that Vaughan rarely if ever used the rear entrance to her apartment. Thus, without further evidence as to the impact on her tenancy, it is impossible for this Court to meaningfully assess damages for this violation. Similarly, while the report cites as a violation a damaged wall in the front bedroom of Vaughan’s apartment and possible leak under the window, it does not suggest what impact, in terms of health, safety, comfort, property damage or otherwise, this violation had on Vaughan’s tenancy. Indeed, based on the record here, this Court has no basis for determining whether the violations shown by Vaughan are more than de minimis and therefore not a breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Accordingly, I conclude that dismissal of Vaughan’s counterclaim for breach of the warranty of habitability was proper.