Section 15B
- Citation
- Section 15B
- 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
878 charsBy “resort to litigation,” the court meant something more than merely filing a complaint. The opinion noted that the Housing Court judge’s findings did “not indicate whether the plaintiff sought a return of his deposit prior to bringing this action.” Castenholz, 21 Mass. App. Ct. at 764. Still, it concluded that the “commencement of the action itself . . . operate[d] as a demand.” Ibid. Because the judge made “no finding of a tender promptly thereafter” and the landlords held firm to the position that the tenant had to sue a new owner of the premises to recoup the deposit, this court found that the landlords violated § 15B(6)(a) and were liable for treble damages, interest, costs, and fees under § 15B(7). Ibid. “[Wjhere the landlord refuses to return the deposit on demand,” § 15B(7) makes “remedy by litigation financially feasible, and thus efficacious.” Id. at 763.