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

820 chars

As the plaintiffs argue, because this lease provision conflicts with the security deposit statute, it is unenforceable.  The statute provides that "[a]ny provision of a lease which conflicts with any provision of this section . . . shall be deemed to be against public policy and therefore void and unenforceable."  G. L. c. 186, § 15B (8).  See Hampshire Village Assocs. v. District Court of Hampshire, 381 Mass. 148, 152-153, cert. denied sub nom. Ruhlander v. District Court of Hampshire, 449 U.S. 1062 (1980), quoting Goes, 8 Mass. App. Ct. at 91 (Legislature "limit[ed] the freedom of landlords and tenants to contract" out of "concern for the welfare of tenants . . . generally in inferior bargaining positions," for whom "legal expense of chasing a security deposit would be more than the amount of the deposit").

Other Sections in This Document (49)

Full Text