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
1,034 charsAlthough the Maxwells are correct that last months’ rents are, with certain limitations, the property of the landlord, not the tenant,6 in the circumstances of this case Hunneman’s place-o ment of security deposits in a pooled account along with last months’ rents did not constitute prohibited commingling. We do not underestimate the importance of the statutory prohibition on commingling, which is often the first step towards personal use of entrusted funds, whether by accident or design. Cf. Matter of the Discipline of an Attorney, 392 Mass. 827, 836-837 (1984). But, in this case, whether it was required to do so or not, Hunneman kept last months’ rents unavailable for use by or on *562behalf of the landlord until due and owing, at which time they were transferred out of the Security Deposit Account. Thus, the risk inherent in commingling — that a landlord might intentionally or inadvertently use tenant funds when accessing the commingled account to pay operating or other personal expenses — simply did not exist here.