Clarendon Hill Somerville, LP v. Biagioni
2014 Mass. App. Div. 181
Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div.2014Background
- Clarendon Hill Somerville, LP and FHRC Management Corp. sued Kenneth Biagioni in summary process for nonpayment of rent on a Section 8 subsidized apartment.
- Rent obligations were determined through annual certifications; minimum rent is $25, with a hardship exemption available under 42 U.S.C. §1437a(a)(3)(B)(i).
- Defendant’s rent was intermittently adjusted (notably May–Sept 2010 to $25; later increases to $342 and then $402) due to unemployment benefits and later adjustments.
- Clarendon purchased the complex on April 9, 2010; on that date, a rental occupancy agreement with Biagioni existed for a one-year term, renewed automatically unless terminated.
- Defendant sought a hardship exemption in September 2012 which was denied; arrearage disputes and alleged miscalculations culminated in trial ending February 22, 2013, with a June 2013 decision remanding on damages and related claims; possession judgment was vacated and is to be determined anew under G.L. c. 239, §8A, fifth par.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the rent arrearage and July–October 2011 charges were properly calculated | Clarendon/FHRC contend proper recertifications and waivers (if any) govern owed rent. | Biagioni argues improper inclusion of increased rents (July–Oct 2011) and miscalculation of arrears. | Remanded for a new trial on the amount owed. |
| Whether the failure to waive the $25 minimum rent or advise about hardship violated Chapter 93A | Plaintiffs deny 93A violations; no unlawful collection of nonowed rent. | Biagioni asserts 93A violations due to hardship denial and misrepresentations. | No 93A violation found on waiver; potential issue if collection of nonowed rent is proven; remand on damages. |
| Whether the initiation of this summary process was a retaliation for Biagioni’s AG complaint | Action taken for nonpayment with independent repayment considerations. | Presumption of reprisal applies; action driven by retaliation after AG complaint. | No error; court found sufficient independent justification; presumption rebutted. |
| Whether the court should exercise equitable powers to avoid forfeiture | Equity disfavors forfeiture given long tenancy and subsidized status. | Forfeiture should be avoided if equity so requires. | Judgment for possession vacated; remanded for new trial on rent amount and related 93A counterclaim under §8A; equity not warranted to foreclose the remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hershenow v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. of Boston, Inc., 445 Mass. 790 (Mass. 2006) (causation required for 93A injuries; per se violations require cognizable loss)
- Callahan v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., Inc., 372 Mass. 582 (Mass. 1977) (clear and convincing standard for rebuttable presumptions; factual questions)
- Manning v. Boston Redev. Auth., 400 Mass. 444 (Mass. 1987) (avoid absurd results; interpret statutes sensibly)
- In re 29 Newbury Street, Inc., 856 F.2d 424 (1st Cir. 1988) (equitable defenses in landlord-tenant actions; forfeiture concerns)
- Paeff v. Hawkins-Waskington Realty Co., 320 Mass. 144 (Mass. 1946) (equitable considerations in possession actions)