Taylor v. Beaudry, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 105 (2012)

Citation: Taylor v. Beaudry, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 105 (2012)
Parent Document: Taylor v. Beaudry, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 105 (2012)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2012-07-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6589791/taylor-v-beaudry/ ↗

Full Text

809 chars

In light of our conclusion about the preclusive effect of the District Court judgment, under the facts presented, both the *110mailing and the receipt of the security deposit took place beyond the statutory thirty-day deadline. We therefore need not reach the tenant’s alternative argument that the statute requires receipt, not simply mailing, of the security deposit within thirty days.2 The meaning of the word “return” in this statute is an important question with broad implications for landlord-tenant law. While we do not decide the matter, we note that we have before us only a single pro se brief in this case, and the statutory question does not appear to be a simple one in light of possible difficulties involved in construction of the language of the statute,3 and of its structure4 and purpose.5

Other Sections in This Document (67)

Full Text