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

983 chars

The defendants further argue that, even if this lease provision conflicts with G. L. c. 186, § 15B (4), the mere existence of the provision in the lease does not entitle the plaintiffs to a remedy under the security deposit statute.  They acknowledge that the statute includes a remedy -- forfeiture of the right to retain any portion of the security deposit -- if a lessor "uses in any lease signed by the tenant any provision which conflicts with any provision of this section and attempts to enforce such provision or attempts to obtain from the tenant or prospective tenant a waiver of any provision of this section" (emphases added).  G. L. c. 186, § 15B (6) (c).  They contend, however, that no such attempted enforcement or attempt to obtain a waiver occurred here.  The Federal court has not asked us to address whether the defendants' alleged conduct violated this statutory provision, and the plaintiffs have not briefed these issues.  We therefore express no view on them.

Other Sections in This Document (49)

Full Text