Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Citation
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Parent Document
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2009-10-15
Other Sections in This Document (34)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Taylor v. Beaudry, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2009)
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
- Section 15B
Full Text
1,627 charsTo be sure, the opinion in Castenholz could be read to suggest that treble damages under § 15B(7) are unavailable anytime a landlord responds to a tenant’s demand and returns a security deposit before “litigation.” But § 15B(7) covers three clauses of § 15B(6) that deal with conduct the Legislature considered “particularly reprehensible.” Hampshire Village Assocs. v. District Ct. of Hampshire, 381 Mass. 148, 153, cert. denied sub nom. Ruhlander v. District Ct. of Hampshire, 449 U.S. 1062 (1980), quoting from Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 78 (1972). The first is § 15B(6)(a), the clause discussed in Castenholz. The second is G. L. c. 186, § 15B(6)(d), which declares a forfeiture if the landlord “fails to transfer [the] security deposit to his successor in interest or to otherwise comply with the provisions of [G. L. c. 186, § 15B(5),] after he has succeeded to an interest in residential real property.” The third clause is § 15B(6)(<?), the provision at issue here, which provides that a forfeiture occurs when the landlord “fails to return to the tenant the security deposit or balance thereof to which the tenant is entitled after deducting therefrom any sums in accordance with the provisions of this section, together with any interest thereon, within thirty days after *416termination of the tenancy” (emphasis added). While smooth application of § 15B(7) to § 15B(6)(<7) likely requires the framework the court used in Castenholz, application of § 15B(7) to § 15B(6)(<?) does not, for the latter clause contains, clearly and visibly, its own compliance deadline: thirty days after termination of the tenancy.