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
532 charsThe Maxwells also claim that Neihaus was required to return their security deposit within thirty days of the expiration of the written lease-on August 31, 1998, even though they remained in possession of the property until the end of October. This, they argue, was a violation of G. L. c. 186, § 15B(6)(<?).7 Again, we agree with the trial judge that Neihaus’s obligation to return the Maxwells’ security deposit within thirty days did not arise at the expiration of the written lease but, rather, when they relinquished possession.