Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

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

Other Sections in This Document (67)

Full Text

1,045 chars
It is understandable that the landlord, Beaudry, declined to join the present proceeding. He has already gone to some lengths in the Housing Court and before this court in Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009) (Taylor I), to oppose the tenant’s *114claims, and no doubt has incurred considerable expense in doing so. The Act is not designed to ran a landlord into the ground in defending against a tenant’s efforts to assert an untenable treble damages claim. Contrary to the Legislature’s intent, the prolonged litigation under the Act here has been to add (not remove) the economic disincentives for the parties to prosecute, or, in this case, defend against a small dollar amount consumer action. “In this court as an appellate tribunal an award of damages must stand unless to make it or to permit it to stand was an abuse of discretion on the part of the court below, amounting to an error of law.” Mirageas v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authy., 391 Mass. 815, 822 (1984), quoting from Bartley v. Phillips, 317 Mass. 35, 43 (1944).