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
604 charsAn important purpose of security deposits is “to provide a source of funds for the payment of the cost of repairs for which a tenant is responsible.” Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 7 (1987). It would not be in keeping with this purpose were othe statute interpreted to require return of a security deposit before the tenant vacates the premises. It also would be incongruous to confer upon tenants at sufferance, like the Maxwells, greater rights than accrue to tenants at will, who are not due their security deposits until thirty days after the termination of their occupancy of the premises.