Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Citation
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Parent Document
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2007-05-17
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6588591/taylor-v-burke/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (31)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
- Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
Full Text
780 charsTo read the language of § 15B(3)(a) as requiring only that the depository bank be in some way connected to a bank of the same name located in the Commonwealth, or with branches in both States, would put the tenant, as owner of the account, to a possibly detailed investigation as to whether deposits to the institution in one State were fungible, that is, available to the tenant, or to simple court process in Massachusetts, through one of the branches of a bank of the same name, a burden not contemplated by the statute. We think rather that the burden of *84demonstrating strict compliance with the statute in this regard, in a trial such as this, rests with the landlord, and is accomplished only if the tenant’s security deposit account is opened in a bank in Massachusetts.