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

1,382 chars

And, at the end of the day, the conclusions in the dissent that the judgment in this case “so unfairly punishes a party as to cause justice to miscarry,” that a suit like this does no more than “run a landlord into the ground,” and that a decent person would have been deterred from taking legal action had his landlord retained some of his security deposit while providing a *112list of damages like the one at issue here, also amount to nothing more than a quarrel with Taylor I and its construction of the statute. To the extent the dissent purports to base its judgment on facts, though, we note that we see no basis in the record for its assertions (a) that this lawsuit “has a vindictive character in the worst sense of that descriptive word,” (b) that there was “waste caused by the tenant” (something that has not been established, that, so far as we know, has never been asserted in this proceeding, and about which we express no opinion), or (c) that the tenant was unharmed by the unsworn-to list of damages sent by the landlord. Nor is there any basis in the record before us for the conclusion that the amounts listed in the landlord’s letter would have been properly deductible from the security deposit under the statute. That, again, has never been established, or even asserted before us by the landlord, and it is something about which we also express no opinion.7

Other Sections in This Document (67)

Full Text