Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Citation
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Parent Document
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 1994-08-26
Other Sections in This Document (27)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
- Rothman v. Rent Control Board, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217 (1994)
Full Text
853 charsThe landlord acknowledges that the board’s regulation 61-025 provides an absolute defense to an eviction in the event that violations, known to the landlord, are found, but he ar*219gues that the use of the words “the time in question” in that regulation limits the abating conditions to the period during which the rental arrearages are claimed by the landlord. The landlord further contends that the board acted outside its jurisdiction — that it effectively created a counterclaim by interpreting regulation 61-036 independently of regulation 61-02 and conducting a fair value analysis7 for a period outside that of the claimed arrearages. He maintains that “the inescapable result” of the board’s interpretation is that the tenant could “withhold rent in futuro without risking the threat of eviction even if the premises were in perfect condition.”