Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Young v. Patukonis, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 907 (1987)

Citation
Young v. Patukonis, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 907 (1987)
Parent Document
Young v. Patukonis, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 907 (1987)
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date
1987-05-01

Full Text

1,092 chars
The interpretation of a regulation is subject to the traditional rules of statutory construction. Amherst Nursing Home, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 638, 640-641 (1983). When the language of a regulation is “plain it must be given its ordinary meaning, and the language used constitutes the principal source of insight into the regulatory purpose.” Morin v. Commissioner of Pub. Welfare, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 20, 24 (1983). The plain and unambiguous language of the regulation indicates that a writing *909is required when the obligation to provide heat and hot water is transferred to the tenant. See Mellor v. Berman, 390 Mass. 275, 280 (1983). The primary purpose of the sanitary code is to protect the public and prevent violations rather than to punish past violations as criminal offenses. See Commonwealth v. Hadley, 351 Mass. 439, 442 (1966), vacated and remanded on different grounds, 388 U.S. 464 (1967); Commonwealth v. Haddad, 364 Mass. 795, 799 (1974). Our interpretation is consistent with that preventative purpose. B. Security Deposit Law — G. L. c. 186, § 15B(3) (a).