Simon v. Solomon, 431 N.E.2d 556 (1982)

Citation: Simon v. Solomon, 431 N.E.2d 556 (1982)
Parent Document: Simon v. Solomon, 431 N.E.2d 556 (1982)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 1982-01-18
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2038443/simon-v-solomon/ ↗

Full Text

1,067 chars

First, Gem argues that § 14 does not create an independent civil action — that it cannot be the basis of a civil recovery until the landlord has been convicted under its criminal provisions. We reject Gem’s interpretation. The statute states that one who “commits” any of the proscribed acts is civilly liable; it does not require “conviction.” Moreover, a requirement of prior criminal conviction would defeat the efficiency of the civil remedy as a means by which tenants can enforce the statute and obtain compensation. This is particularly true in the context of summary eviction proceedings. By the express terms of the statute a tenant may apply its claims under § 14 against a claim for rent by the landlord. If a prior criminal conviction were required, however, tenants would rarely be able to raise such counterclaims in summary eviction proceedings based on nonpayment of rent. A statute should not be read in a manner that defeats its intended utility. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Lamb, 365 Mass. 265, 269 (1974); Hein-Werner Corp. v. Jackson Indus., Inc.,

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text