INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Adjartey v. Cent. Div. of the Hous. Court Departmentand, 120 N.E.3d 297 (2019)

Citation
Adjartey v. Cent. Div. of the Hous. Court Departmentand, 120 N.E.3d 297 (2019)
Parent Document
Adjartey v. Cent. Div. of the Hous. Court Departmentand, 120 N.E.3d 297 (2019)
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date
2019-04-10
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7178223/adjartey-v-cent-div-of-the-hous... ↗

Other Sections in This Document (125)

Full Text

1,694 chars 
The complexity of a summary process eviction is exacerbated by the web of applicable statutes and rules. While the Uniform Summary Process Rules aim to outline each step of an eviction action, see Rules 1-13 of the Uniform Summary Process Rules, a **837litigant must consider a variety of other rules and statutes in order to comprehend the full scope of the process. For instance, the substance of summary process eviction actions -- as well as various procedural details not addressed in the Uniform Summary Process Rules -- are governed by G. L. c. 239. And aspects of the process not specifically addressed by the Uniform Summary Process Rules are governed by the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, insofar as the latter rules "are not inconsistent with [the Uniform Summary Process Rules], with applicable statutory law or with the jurisdiction of the particular court in which they would be applied." Rule 1 of the Uniform Summary Process Rules (1980). Where a tenant seeks to waive the fees and costs associated with a Housing Court eviction action, the tenant must satisfy the eligibility requirements described in G. L. c. 261, §§ 27A - 27G. The various rules and statutes are not only complicated, but at times overlapping. See, e.g., G. L. c. 261, § 27A (describing appeal bonds as "extra fees and costs"); G. L. c. 239, § 5 (describing appeal bond requirement and waivers of appeal bond). Deciding when to apply which of these rules -- and how to resolve inconsistencies among them -- is therefore a formidable challenge for an unrepresented litigant seeking to comply with fast-moving deadlines, especially when that litigant is also facing the stress of a potential eviction.