PHOEBE FLEMMING v. GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.P., 177 N.E.3d 1244 (2021)

Citation: PHOEBE FLEMMING v. GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.P., 177 N.E.3d 1244 (2021) 2.
Parent Document: PHOEBE FLEMMING v. GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.P., 177 N.E.3d 1244 (2021)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2021-10-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10271968/phoebe-flemming-v-greystar-man... ↗

Full Text

1,224 chars

2. Reletting and buyout fees. We agree with Greystar that Flemming lacks standing to challenge the lease provisions governing reletting and buyout fees. It is undisputed that Greystar did not charge Flemming either fee when she vacated the apartment. Nonetheless, Flemming contends that she was injured because the risk of incurring the fees might affect a tenant's "life decisions," such as whether "to move for a new employment opportunity." But Flemming did not raise this argument to the motion judge and offered no evidence that any such risk in fact influenced her decision-making. See Cesso v. Todd, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 131, 139 (2017) (speculation insufficient to defeat summary judgment). Moreover, that G. L. c. 93A, § 9 (3), authorizes nominal damages did not relieve Flemming of the obligation to prove injury. "[A] plaintiff bringing an action for damages under c. 93A, § 9, must allege and ultimately prove that she has . . . suffered a distinct injury or harm that arises from the claimed unfair or deceptive act itself." Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 464 Mass. 492, 503 (2013). Commonwealth v. Chatham Dev. Co., 49 Mass. App. Ct. 525 (2000), relied on by Flemming, is not to the contrary. That was a Page 474

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text