Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)

Citation: Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
Parent Document: Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2002-09-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6578571/wesson-v-leone-enterprises-inc/ ↗

Full Text

1,389 chars

*714In ascertaining whether there has been a constructive eviction, it is “the landlord’s conduct,” and not his subjective intention, that “is controlling.” Blackett v. Olanoff, 371 Mass. 714, 716 (1977). Therefore, a constructive eviction may be found even where a landlord did not intend to violate a tenant’s rights, as the law assumes that the landlord intends “the natural and probable consequence of what [he] did, what he failed to do, or what he permitted to be done.” Id. However, not every act or failure to act on the part of the landlord that causes disruption to a tenant rises to the level of a constructive eviction. To constitute a constructive eviction, the act must have “some degree of substance and permanence of character.” Tracy v. Long, 295 Mass. 201, 204 (1936). Thus, a landlord’s failure to provide a service that is essential to the use and enjoyment of the demised premises may qualify as a constructive eviction.15 Yet, conduct that does “not make the premises untenantable for the purposes for which they were used” will not constitute constructive eviction. A.W. Banister Co. v. P.J.W. Moodie Lumber Corp., 286 Mass. 424, 426 (1934) (landlord’s breach of express covenant to supply steam to dry lumber “simply made the use [of the leased premises] less convenient and more expensive” and “[djamages for breach of covenant ... afforded an adequate remedy”).16

Other Sections in This Document (52)

Full Text