Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)

Citation
Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
Parent Document
Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (1987)
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date
1987-04-02

Other Sections in This Document (40)

Full Text

563 chars
We think that the language of G. L. c. 186, § 15B(6), the purposes for which the statute was enacted and the legislative history make clear that the Legislature meant what it said, i.e., that a landlord in violation of the security deposit law would be barred only from making a claim against the tenant for damage to the premises by way of counterclaim in an action by the tenant to recover the security deposit. In this context, we give the word “counterclaim” its ordinary legal meaning. See G. L. c. 4, § 6, cl. Third; Arthur A. Johnson Corp. v. Commonwealth,