BRANDA PEEBLES & Another v. JRK PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., & others. (2025)

Citation: BRANDA PEEBLES & Another v. JRK PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., & others. (2025)
Parent Document: BRANDA PEEBLES & Another v. JRK PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., & others. (2025)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2025-08-01
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10646213/branda-peebles-another-v-jrk-p... ↗

Full Text

1,252 chars

Our common-law cases concerning commercial leases shed light on the meaning of reasonable wear and tear, in the context of leases requiring the tenants themselves to maintain the premises in good repair, with an exception for "reasonable wearing and use."  Codman v. Hygrade Food Prods. Corp., 295 Mass. 195, 196 (1936).  See also, e.g., Kaplan v. Flynn, 255 Mass. 127, 129 (1926).[6]  In Codman, 295 Mass. at 196-197, following a jury verdict for the tenant in a lessor's action to recover for water damage, we noted that the evidence warranted findings that the parties' contemplated use of the building for manufacturing sausage "necessarily" entailed "[d]ampness in the building and the presence of some water on the floors."  We held that the judge had properly admitted evidence regarding the property's condition at the start of the one-year lease -- which followed a twelve-year lease by a different sausage manufacturer -- because "whether a state of disrepair apparent in a particular part of the building was caused in whole or in part by reasonable wear and use during the tenant's occupancy would ordinarily involve the consideration of the state of repair of that same part of the building when the occupancy began."  Id. at 197, 200-201.

Other Sections in This Document (49)

Full Text