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
1,001 chars*561The security deposit provisions of G. L. c. 186, § 15B, are designed to insure that tenant monies are protected from potential diversion to the personal use of the landlord, earn interest for the tenant, and are kept from the reach of the landlord’s creditors.5 These objectives were met in this case. The deposit was placed in a bank account that was maintained separately from the landlord’s operating account containing Neihaus’s own funds; the accounting system utilized by Hunneman kept track of the deposit, distinguished it from other funds in the account and enabled a proper computation of the interest due to the Maxwells; and, because the security deposit was separately designated in this manner, it could not be attached: a creditor could not make the requisite showing that these separately identified funds were due to Neihaus absolutely and without contingency. See G. L. c. 246, § 24; Goodspeed’s Book Shop, Inc. v. State Street Bank & Trust Co., 8 Mass. App. Ct. 147, 149 (1979).