Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Jablonski v. Casey, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 744 (2005)

Citation
Jablonski v. Casey, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 744 (2005)
Parent Document
Jablonski v. Casey, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 744 (2005)
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date
2005-10-13

Full Text

806 chars
Casey’s remaining counterclaims. Casey counterclaimed that York breached her covenant of quiet enjoyment. Similar to the warranty of habitability, during the rental of any residential premises, there exists an implied covenant and a statutory right of quiet enjoyment. See Simon v. Solomon, 385 Mass. 91, 102 (1982); G. L. c. 186, § 14.5 We have interpreted this obligation to mean that the covenant of quiet enjoyment protects a tenant *748from serious interference with her tenancy. See Doe v. New Bedford Hous. Authy., 417 Mass. 273, 285 (1994). Generally, the landlord must have had notice of the condition interfering with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises, and he must have at least acted negligently in not alleviating the condition. See Al-Ziab v. Mourgis, 424 Mass. 847, 850-851 (1997).