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

1,316 chars

An interpretation which gives reasonable meaning to all provisions of a contract is preferred to one which renders a provision superfluous. Worcester Mut. Ins. Co. v. Marnell, 398 Mass. 240, 245 (1986); Associated Credit Services, Inc. v. City of Worcester, 33 Mass.App.Ct. 92, 94, rev. den., 413 Mass. 1107 (1992). Nonetheless, this Court concludes that Paragraph K conflicts with Paragraph 10 of the Addendum. The purpose of Paragraph 10 is to protect the Section 8 tenant’s right to continued occupancy in a particular premises against arbitrary and unfair action by the landlord, in light of the shortage of affordable housing for low-income families. To that end, Paragraph 10 of the Addendum provides that the only way the owner may terminate a Section 8 tenancy is to institute a court action and prove good cause to terminate. Paragraph K, however, allows the owner to terminate the tenancy following a fire, without good cause and without a summary process action, simply by invoking its terms. To the extent that JRM and Kimball invoked Paragraph K to terminate the lease, Paragraph K conflicts with the terms of Paragraph 10 of the Addendum, which expressly states that the only way a landlord can terminate the Section 8 tenancy is by instituting a court action and demonstrating good cause to terminate.

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text