Boston Housing Authority v. Hemingway, 293 N.E.2d 831 (1973)

Citation: Boston Housing Authority v. Hemingway, 293 N.E.2d 831 (1973)
Parent Document: Boston Housing Authority v. Hemingway, 293 N.E.2d 831 (1973)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 1973-03-05
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2000597/boston-housing-authority-v-hemingway/ ↗

Full Text

1,480 chars

[16] The State Sanitary Code's minimum standards of fitness for human habitation and any relevant local health regulations provide the trial court with the threshhold requirements that all housing must meet. Proof of any violation of these regulations would usually constitute compelling evidence that the apartment was not in habitable condition, regardless of whether the evidence was sufficient proof of a constructive eviction under our old case law. However, the protection afforded by the implied warranty of habitability does not necessarily coincide with the Code's requirements. There may be instances where conditions not covered by the Code regulations render the apartment uninhabitable. Although we have eliminated the defence of constructive eviction in favor of a warranty of habitability defence, a fact situation, which could have demonstrated a constructive eviction, would now be sufficient proof of a material breach of the warranty of habitability, regardless of whether a sanitary code violation existed or not. On the other hand, there may be instances of isolated Code violations which may not warrant a decision that the premises are uninhabitable. The trial court must have the same broad discretion to determine whether there is a material breach given the special circumstances of each case as that accorded the board of health under Reg. 39 of the Code which allows the board to vary the application of any provision with respect to a particular case.

Other Sections in This Document (181)

Full Text