Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)

Citation: Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
Parent Document: Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2005-12-20
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8356005/murray-v-zullo/ ↗

Full Text

1,433 chars

The plaintiffs Amended Complaint as well as her memorandum filed in connection with these motions allege a hodgepodge of facts and legal theories. Count I (alleging a violation of G.L.c. 186, §18) and Count II (alleging a violation of G.L.c. 186, §14) stem directly from her tenancy and the conditions existing at the time she occupied the Apartment. This Court concludes that these claims could and should have been litigated in the summaiy process action and cannot be relitigated here. Counts III and IV (alleging a breach of contract) primarily stem from the parties’ side agreement that Murray pay an extra $ 100 a month to the Zullos in rent. To the extent that this was in violation of FHA rules, however, only the FHA has the standing to challenge the arrangement. Count V alleges a violation of G.L.c. 93A which, based on the record before the Court, plaintiff has no reasonable expectation of proving. Count VII alleges a violation of G.L.c. 151B, but the plaintiff never filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (“MCAD”), thus requiring dismissal of this claim. In the final analysis, all that survives the defendants’ motion for summary judgment here is Count VI of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (alleging unjust enrichment). As to that count, the defendants have a Counterclaim, which also remains in the case. What follows is the Court’s reasoning as to the conclusions set forth above.

Other Sections in This Document (28)

Full Text