Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

670 chars
It bears some emphasis that under the Act, the purpose of a tenant’s security deposit is to “provide a source of funds for the payment of the cost of repairs for which a tenant is responsible.” Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 7 (1987). “It would not *120be in keeping with this purpose” if the court were to interpret the Act in such a way as “to require return of a security deposit before the tenant vacates the premises.” Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558, 562 (2002). By his holding over, the tenant altered the time when the landlord was obliged to return the deposit, a conclusion entirely consistent with the architecture of the Act as a whole.11