Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)

Citation: Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
Parent Document: Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2006-07-21
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6579392/humphrey-v-byron/ ↗

Full Text

1,024 chars

In his brief, Humphrey claims that Florence Byron stored and removed items from the basement, reserved the right to enter the premises, used common driveways and parking spaces, restricted the color of paint that the tenants could use in the interior, prohibited most animals and certain chemicals from the premises, and prohibited repairs and alterations without their approval. Except for the last claim, none of these claims of “control” suggests that the landlord had any control over maintenance or repair of the leased premises.9 At most, the landlord’s continued access to the basement would have made it aware of the unsafe stairway. See Agustynowicz v. Bradley, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 405, 408 (1988) (“We think it unreasonable in the circumstances ... to expect the defendant owners to undertake responsibility for maintaining the door” even though one owner was on actual notice of condition of door). These considerations do not outweigh the lease provision expressly giving control of the leased premises to Gateway.

Other Sections in This Document (30)

Full Text