Mellor v. Berman, 390 Mass. 275 (1983)

Citation: Mellor v. Berman, 390 Mass. 275 (1983)
Parent Document: Mellor v. Berman, 390 Mass. 275 (1983)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 1983-10-03
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6575926/mellor-v-berman/ ↗

Full Text

1,209 chars

In his report of questions of law, pursuant to Mass. R. A. P. 5, as appearing in 378 Mass. 924 (1979), the judge found that the lessor had given proper notice. General Laws c. 186, § 15B (4) (in), as appearing in St. 1978, c. 553, states that if a deduction from the security deposit is made “the lessor shall provide to the tenant within such thirty days an itemized list of damages, sworn to by the lessor or his agent under pains and penalties of perjury, itemizing in precise detail the nature of the damage and of the repairs necessary to correct such damage, and written evidence, such as estimates, bills, invoices or receipts, indicating the actual or estimated cost thereof.” The purpose of requiring specific itemization is to ensure that “landlords do not make spurious and unfounded deductions for damage.” McGrath v. Mishara, 386 Mass. 74, 80 (1982). The letter, signed by the defendant, itemized the damages, indicated the cost of repair and by whom, but was not signed under the pains of perjury, nor did it enclose the actual estimates or receipts. The letter did note, however, that the $500 security deposit had earned $25, at a rate of 5 % interest. See G. L. c. 186, § 15B (3) (a) and (b).

Other Sections in This Document (38)

Full Text