City of Worcester v. College Hill Properties, LLC
465 Mass. 134
Mass.2013Background
- Defendants own 2- and 3-family rental properties in Worcester with apartments leased to four unrelated college students.
- Each apartment includes common areas and bedrooms; occupants share facilities.
- City determined that occupying four unrelated adults not within second degree of kindred constitutes lodging under G. L. c. 140, §§ 22-32, and that licenses were required.
- City filed housing court complaints seeking injunctions to stop unlicensed lodging and later civil contempt for noncompliance.
- Housing Court found the occupied units met the lodging definition and issued injunctions; defendants were found in contempt for not reducing occupancy.
- Massachusetts appellate history relevant to lodging-house interpretation and licensing standards informs the Supreme Judicial Court’s review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether four unrelated adults in a dwelling unit constitute lodgings under the lodging house act | City contends four unrelated occupants fit ‘lodgings’ under the act | Defendants contend occupancy of four unrelated adults does not create lodgings or a lodging house | No; the units are not lodgings and not lodging houses under the act |
| Whether the contempt judgments were civil or criminal and enforceable | Contempt was used to coerce compliance with injunctions | Contempt awards were punitive and improperly punitive | Contempt judgments vacated; civil remedies not supported since no valid equitable relief on lodgings issue |
| Whether licensing provisions and enforcement approach align with the act’s purposes | Licensing and monitoring ensure safety and morality | Enforcement for off-campus student housing should rely on zoning and fire/sanitary codes, not lodging-house act | Licensing regime under the lodging-house act does not apply to these circumstances |
| Whether the construction would create absurd or selectively enforced outcomes | Broadly applying lodging-house definitions would be coherent with statute | Selective enforcement and absurd results would arise under city’s reading | Reading lodging-house terms as broadly applied would produce absurd or selective outcomes; rejected |
| What is the proper interpretation of “lodgings” and “lodging house” in this context | Lodgings should be read as places where lodgings are let to four or more unrelated adults | Lodgings are distinct from apartments and the terms reflect historical lodger/tenant distinctions | “Lodgings” are not equivalent to typical apartment occupancy; the act’s scope does not cover these units |
Key Cases Cited
- Newbury Jr. College v. Brookline, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 197 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985) (context for purposes of lodging-house statute and its moral-oversight goals)
- Maher v. Brookline, 339 Mass. 209 (Mass. 1959) (historical understanding of lodging-house act and lodger/tenant distinction)
- White v. Maynard, 111 Mass. 250 (Mass. 1872) (lodger vs. tenant distinction; occupancy interests)
- Bech v. Cuevas, 404 Mass. 249 (Mass. 1989) (lodgers’ rights and property interests; occupancy vs. tenancy)
- Hall v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Edgartown, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 249 (Mass. App. Ct. 1990) (distinguishes lodgings from apartments; broader regulatory implications)
- Worcester v. Bonaventura, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 166 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002) (zoning context; not controlling for lodging-house act interpretation)
- Massachusetts Hosp. Ass’n v. Department of Med. Sec., 412 Mass. 340 (Mass. 1992) (interpretation of statutory purpose and history in health-related regulation)
- Massachusetts Sober Housing Corp. v. Automatic Sprinkler Appeals Bd., 66 Mass. App. Ct. 701 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006) (application of regulatory definitions to housing programs)