Fennelly v. Kimball Court Apartments Ltd. Partnership, 14 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2001)

Citation: Fennelly v. Kimball Court Apartments Ltd. Partnership, 14 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2001)
Parent Document: Fennelly v. Kimball Court Apartments Ltd. Partnership, 14 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2001)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2001-09-25
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8354506/fennelly-v-kimball-court-apartm... ↗

Full Text

1,515 chars

The parties have cross-moved for judgment as a matter of law on Count I of the complaint, which alleges that Kimball and JRM have breached the Lease by terminating Fennelly’s tenancy following the fire. Interpretation of an unambiguous written contract is a question of law appropriate for disposition upon summary judgment. Lumber Mut. Ins. Co. v. Zoltek Corp., 419 Mass. 704, 707 (1995); Lo Cicero v. Hartford Ins. Group, 25 Mass.App.Ct. 339, 341 (1988). It is well established that an unambiguous contract must be enforced according to its terms. Schwanbeck v. Federal Mogul Corp., 412 Mass. 1, 5 (1992); Curtis v. Surrette, 49 Mass.App.Ct. 99, 103 (2000). Kimball and JRM contend that under the clear language of Paragraph K of the Lease and Paragraph H, Section 2 of the Occupancy Agreement, Fennelly’s lease automatically terminated when the May 30, 2000 fire rendered the Unit uninhabitable. The parties may provide for the termination of a lease upon the happening of a particular event. See Loitherstein v. International Business Machines Corp., 11 Mass.App.Ct. 91, 93 (1980), rev. den., 383 Mass. 890 (1981). Fennelly argues that the destruction of premises clause relied on by the defendants is trumped by the HUD-required language in Paragraph 10 of the Addendum, which provides that a tenant’s Section 8 lease can only be terminated by initiating a court action, and only for violation of the Lease, violation of state or federal law governing tenant obligations, criminal activity or other good cause.

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text