826 F. Supp. 2d 380
D. Mass.2011Background
- Hermidas sue Archstone Reading and affiliates in MA state court, removed to federal court, seeking declaration that an upfront amenity use fee violates the Security Deposit Statute, ch. 186, §15B(1)(b).
- Lease for apartment 302 began May 2007; Hermidas paid a one-time $475 amenity fee prior to or at inception, plus prorated May rent and trash fees.
- Hermidas did not pay a last-month’s rent or a security deposit at tenancy start; lock/keys fee not charged, though set at $50 in the lease.
- Hermidas were told the amenity fee was for pool, gym, and outdoor grill; the fee was presented as part of the initial leasing package.
- Statute §15B(1)(b) prohibits charging any amount at inception beyond enumerated categories (i)-(iv); the dispute centers on whether the amenity fee fits within these categories.
- Court denies Archstone’s summary judgment and awards Hermidas summary judgment on liability under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, §2; the fee is not within the enumerated categories and is prohibited at inception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is §15B(l)(b) unambiguous about upfront charges? | Hermidas: statute prohibits any upfront charge beyond enumerated items. | Archstone: statute permits a total cap across enumerated items. | Unambiguous; up-front charges beyond enumerated items are prohibited. |
| Were Hermidas “tenants or prospective tenants” when charged the amenity fee? | Hermidas were tenants when entering lease. | Archstone contends fee could be self-standing, not tied to tenancy status. | Hermidas were tenants at the time of charge. |
| Does the amenity use fee fit within enumerated provisions (i)-(iv)? | Amenity fee falls outside categories (i)-(iv). | Fee could be construed as another permissible pre- tenancy charge. | Fee does not fit any enumerated provision; violates §15B(1)(b). |
| Does Dolben/Carter support treating upfront fees beyond enumerated items as unlawful? | Higher courts prohibit charges beyond enumerated items; Dolben/Carter support. | Archstone: those cases do not bind the instant interpretation. | Yes; these authorities reinforce that additional upfront charges beyond enumerated items are unlawful. |
| What is the remedy for violation of §15B(1)(b)? | Hermidas seek relief and 93A relief for deception. | Archstone seeks dismissal and no liability. | Court grants Hermidas 93A liability relief; denies Archstone’s summary judgment on liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mellor v. Berman, 390 Mass. 275 (1983) (statutory language is unambiguous; strict compliance required)
- Cote v. Sylvia, 2008 Mass. App. Div. 27 (2008) (security deposit requirements are unequivocal; noncompliance not excused)
- Harvard Crimson, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 445 Mass. 745 (2006) (interpret statutes by ordinary meaning and intent; read as a whole)
- Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 24 Mass.App.Ct. 1 (1987) (legislature balanced rights of landlords and tenants in security deposits)
- Hampshire Village Associates, 381 Mass. 148 (1980) (statutory controls on deposits reflect tenant protection and limits on landlord charges)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass.App.Ct. 77 (2007) (legislative history shows tenant protection is central in §15B)