Fennelly v. Kimball Court Apartments Ltd. Partnership, 14 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2001)

Citation: Fennelly v. Kimball Court Apartments Ltd. Partnership, 14 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2001)
Parent Document: Fennelly v. Kimball Court Apartments Ltd. Partnership, 14 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2001)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2001-09-25
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8354506/fennelly-v-kimball-court-apartm... ↗

Full Text

1,299 chars

Clearly, Kimball and JRM’s conduct in declaring the Lease terminated and refusing to allow Fennelly to return to the Unit after it was restored to habitability on November 13, 2000 constitutes a serious interference with her tenancy and substantially impairs the value of the premises. See Curnoyer v. Davis, 1977 Mass.App.Div. 1032, 1041-42 (concluding that a landlord violated the covenant of quiet enjoyment where he locked the tenant out of her apartment). Compare Rahman v. Federal Management Co., 23 Mass.App.Ct. at 705-06 (concluding that the mere filing of a summary process action does not violate the covenant of quiet enjoyment). Even assuming that Kimball and JRM were acting under a good faith misunderstanding of the law, a landlord may be liable -under G.L.c. 186, §14 where although he acted in good faith, his negligence deprived the tenant of the quiet enjoyment of the premises. Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782, 789 (1994). For purposes of the statute, it is the landlord’s conduct and not his intention which is controlling. Id.; Lowery v. Robinson, 13 Mass.App.Ct. 982, 982-83 (1982). Thus, the defendants’ conduct in declaring the Lease terminated and refusing to allow Fennelly to return to the Unit after it was restored to habitability violated G.L.c. 186, §14.

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text