McGrath v. Mishara, 434 N.E.2d 1215 (1982)

Citation: McGrath v. Mishara, 434 N.E.2d 1215 (1982)
Parent Document: McGrath v. Mishara, 434 N.E.2d 1215 (1982)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 1982-05-03
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2047214/mcgrath-v-mishara/ ↗

Full Text

1,113 chars

The tenants also object to the judge’s handling of the c. 93A claim. They argue that the landlord’s actions (i.e., demands for excess rent in June, July, and August, three notices to quit, and the improper deduction from the security deposit) constitute seven distinct violations of c. 93A. They also claim that each violation need not be supported by a “loss of money or property” so long as the tenants suffered some actual loss. We need not decide whether the landlord’s conduct could support more than one award of damages under the current version of c. 93A, § 9 (1), inserted by St. 1979, c. 406, § 1. Even if we assume that each of the seven named acts was an unfair or deceptive one declared unlawful by c. 93A, § 2, only the last of those acts resulted in loss of money to the tenants. Under the clear terms of § 9 (1), as then in effect, the tenants’ only cause of action was for the improper deduction from the security deposit. The judge correctly limited the tenants’ recovery under c. 93A to this sum, trebled to reflect the wilful and knowing nature of the violation. 3. Cumulative damage question.

Other Sections in This Document (74)

Full Text