Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (2002)
- Citation
- Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (2002)
- Parent Document
- Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (2002)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2002-04-24
Other Sections in This Document (21)
- Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (2002)
- Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (2002)
- Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (2002)
- Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (2002)
- Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (2002)
- Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (2002)
- Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (2002)
- Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (2002)
- Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (2002)
- Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (2002)
- Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (2002)
- Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (2002)
- Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (2002)
- Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (2002)
- Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (2002)
- Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (2002)
- Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (2002)
- Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (2002)
- Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (2002)
- Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (2002)
- Neihaus v. Maxwell, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 558 (2002)
Full Text
608 charsThe Maxwells’ primary contention is that their security deposit was illegally commingled with funds belonging to Neihaus and exposed to claims by Neihaus’s creditors, in violation of § 15B(l)(e),2 and not held in an appropriate, separate bank account, in violation of § 15(B)(3)(a),3 thereby entitling them to an award of three times the security deposit plus interest, costs and attorney’s fees, pursuant to §§ 15B(6) and 15B(7).4 We agree with the trial judge that the Maxwells’ claim is without merit, because Hunneman’s method of holding the security deposit for Neihaus did not run afoul of the statute.