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

1,046 chars

Further, the facts of the present case demand such a result. The Unit which was temporarily rendered uninhabitable by a fire has now been restored and is ready for occupancy by a tenant, yet Kimball and JRM have changed the locks on the Unit and refuse to allow Fennelly to resume her Section 8 tenancy.3 These circumstances suggest the type of arbitrary and unfair landlord action against which the HUD-required language in the Addendum was designed to protect low-income tenants. To the extent that Kimball and JRM *42may have good cause for denying Fennelly continued occupancy of the Unit based on the suggestion in the record that Fennelly’s failure to properly supervise her sons caused the ñre, they must comply with the procedural requirements of Section 10 of the Addendum and institute the appropriate summary process proceedings. Fennelly’s Section 8 lease, tenancy and right to occupy the Unit were not automatically terminated by the May 30, 2000 fire. Fennelly is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Count I of the complaint.

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text