133 WEST MAIN STREET REALTY, LLC v. ALLEN KIMBALL & Another (2025)

Citation: 133 WEST MAIN STREET REALTY, LLC v. ALLEN KIMBALL & Another (2025)
Parent Document: 133 WEST MAIN STREET REALTY, LLC v. ALLEN KIMBALL & Another (2025)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2025-02-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10333571/133-west-main-street-realty-ll... ↗

Full Text

1,333 chars

In the present case, 133 West Main argues
that it was not acting in trade or commerce because Mayer allowed Allen to
reside at the premises as a friendly gesture; Allen lived there rent free for
four years; 133 West Main subsequently charged Allen rent below market rate;[8]
133 West Main did not generate a profit from the rental of the premises; and
there was no evidence that 133 West Main ever received any material financial
benefit from the rental of the premises. 
The argument has some facial appeal. 
See, e.g., Billings, 397 Mass. at 616 ("in the circumstances here,
concerning the rental of a dwelling unit in an owner-occupied two-family house,
where the landlord owns no other rental real property, c. 93A is not
applicable"); Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558, 563 (2002)
(homeowner not liable under c. 93A "because he was not engaged in
trade or commerce with respect to the isolated rental of his [single-family]
home while he was temporarily living overseas"); Young v. Patukonis, 24
Mass. App. Ct. 907, 910 (1987) ("owner-occupant of a three-family
building, whose primary objective is personal, is not subject to G. L.
c. 93A").  Nevertheless, under
the particular facts of this case, we cannot conclude that the judge erred in
determining that 133 West Main was "in trade or commerce with [the
Kimballs]."

Other Sections in This Document (48)

Full Text