Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Cruz Management Co. v. Wideman, 633 N.E.2d 384 (1994)

Citation
Cruz Management Co. v. Wideman, 633 N.E.2d 384 (1994)
Parent Document
Cruz Management Co. v. Wideman, 633 N.E.2d 384 (1994)
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date
1994-05-12

Other Sections in This Document (57)

Full Text

1,012 chars
MHFA contends that this case is not about the proper measure of damages in an action for a breach of the implied warranty of habitability, but about the proper allocation of those damages. If MHFA had joined this case on the side of Wideman, this assertion might be accurate. MHFA did not do so, and it has not suggested that it is entitled to any monetary recovery in this case. In addition, there is no evidence that, in this case, or in other cases, MHFA has attempted to recover rent subsidies paid for housing units where conditions violated the implied warranty of habitability. Instead, MHFA’s position is that, in all cases, a tenant in subsidized housing is entitled to a recovery based on the amount of rent the tenant personally pays, rather than a recovery based on the value of premises as warranted. We think that this case more precisely concerns the measure of damages to which a tenant in Wideman’s position is entitled and not the allocation of damages. 8 There is language in Simon v. Solomon,