CMJ Management Co. v. Wilkerson
AC 16-P-426
| Mass. App. Ct. | Mar 31, 2017Background
- Tenant Patricia Wilkerson lived in a HUD Section 8-subsidized unit at Harbor Point with her 14-year-old grandson (authorized occupant).
- In July 2014 the grandson fired a BB gun in a common area, injuring two children; Harbor Point security confiscated the BB gun; no criminal charges were pursued.
- CMJ Management (landlord/agent) served a notice to quit and sued in Housing Court to terminate Wilkerson’s lease for "criminal activity" by a household member under the HUD model lease.
- The lease (HUD model) permits termination for criminal activity by any member of the tenant’s household that threatens health, safety, or peaceful enjoyment of others; it does not distinguish adults from juveniles.
- At a pretrial conference Wilkerson (pro se) had not filed the required pretrial memorandum; the judge struck her jury demand and scheduled a bench trial; she did not object at trial and the judge awarded possession to CMJ.
- On appeal the trial judge’s factual findings were accepted; the Appeals Court reviewed legal conclusions de novo and considered whether the juvenile’s conduct constituted criminal activity/material breach and whether striking the jury demand was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "criminal activity" in the HUD lease includes juvenile conduct | "Criminal activity" should not apply to juveniles | Lease language covers "any member of the tenant's household," so juveniles are included | Included: lease language and HUD policy encompass juvenile conduct |
| Whether firing BB gun (no criminal prosecution) constituted "criminal activity"/material breach | Without arrest/conviction or because statute imposes only a fine, conduct is not "criminal activity" | Statute is a criminal statute; conviction or arrest not required by lease or HUD rules | Conduct was criminal (violation of G. L. c. 269, §12B) and threatened residents' safety; material breach |
| Whether owner properly exercised discretion to evict under HUD regulations | Eviction improper because juvenile not convicted and tenant shouldn’t be held liable | HUD regulations allow termination based on owner's determination regardless of arrest/conviction; owner may consider circumstances | CMJ properly exercised discretion to evict for activity threatening health/safety |
| Whether striking Wilkerson's jury demand for failure to file pretrial memorandum violated due process / right to jury | Striking jury demand was improper; art. 15 and statute protect jury right; lesser sanctions should have been tried | Pretrial order warned of sanctions; judge has discretion and self-represented litigants must follow orders | Erroneous: striking jury demand was too harsh here; due process factors favored less drastic sanctions; judgment vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. Metropolitan Hous. Assistance Program, 425 Mass. 79 (Mass. 1997) (context on assisted housing policy)
- Department of Housing & Urban Dev. v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (U.S. 2002) (public housing authority discretion to evict for household member's drug-related activity)
- Boston Hous. Authy. v. Garcia, 449 Mass. 727 (Mass. 2007) (HUD policy supports individualized consideration in eviction for criminal activity)
- Costa v. Fall River Hous. Authy., 453 Mass. 614 (Mass. 2009) (HUD regulations permit termination for criminal activity that threatens health/safety/peaceful enjoyment)
- New Bedford Hous. Authy. v. Olan, 435 Mass. 364 (Mass. 2001) (right to jury in eviction context preserved under art. 15)
- Keene v. Brigham & Women's Hosp., Inc., 56 Mass. App. Ct. 10 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002) (factors for reviewing sanctions and due process considerations)