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

843 chars

The defendants' attempt to defend the enforceability of the lease provision is unavailing.  They chiefly argue that the requirement to have the apartment professionally cleaned relates to conduct "before the end of the tenancy" and thus is "not behavior that is regulated by" the security deposit provisions in G. L. c. 186, § 15B (4).  But the disputed lease provision is not merely a stand-alone requirement that a tenant have an apartment professionally cleaned at the conclusion of the tenant's occupancy.[8]  Rather, the provision requires that the apartment be returned in "professionally cleaned" condition, on penalty of a host of security deposit deductions to repair various forms of damage that may be reasonable wear and tear.  As such, the provision is in conflict with the statute and unenforceable under G. L. c. 186, § 15B (8).

Other Sections in This Document (49)

Full Text