Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Citation
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Parent Document
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2000-02-11
Other Sections in This Document (45)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
Full Text
1,000 charsAs an initial matter, it is necessary to determine Mogilevsky’s status. The parties have entered into an agreement whereby Mogilevsky would provide superintendent services in exchange for housing. Mogilevsky alleges that the housing he bargained for is required to meet minimum standards of habitability and that he is entitled to secure that compliance under our laws. The Defendants maintain, however, that Mogilevsky is a licensee and has no right to the protections afforded tenants in the Commonwealth or under federal law. There are no appellate decisions on this exact question. A ruling on this question is necessary to resolve this motion to dismiss. After a review of related decisions and relying on principles of statutory construction, this Court finds, as a matter of law, that the laws relative to requiring and securing the right to habitable premises are available to individuals who receive housing in exchange for services, even if those individuals are considered to be licensees.