GREP ATLANTIC LLC v. PAUL (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

This appeal stems from a no-fault residential summary process action brought in the Housing Court by the plaintiffs (landlord) against the defendant (tenant). The tenant appeals from the resulting judgment for summary process, which awarded possession of the leased premises to the landlord and adjudicated the tenant's counterclaims in the landlord's favor. We affirm.

Background. We summarize the judge's findings based on the evidence at trial. The tenant has lived at the premises since 2021. His most recent lease ran from June 11, 2023, through June 10, 2024. At the conclusion of that lease, the tenant owed at least $7,000. The landlord elected not to enter into a new lease with the tenant due to the arrearage. When the lease expired, the tenant did not move out and, therefore, became a tenant at will.

In December 2024, the landlord served the tenant with a notice to quit, terminating the tenancy at will at the end of January 2025. The tenant did not vacate and, in February 2025, the landlord filed a no-fault summary process action seeking to evict the tenant but not seeking delinquent rent.² The tenant filed an answer and counterclaims asserting claims for retaliation under G. L. c. 186, § 18, interference with his use of the premises under G. L. c. 186, § 14,³ and violation of G. L. c. 93A.

Discussion. On review of a judgment in a summary process action, we accept the factual findings of the judge as true unless clearly erroneous, see Cambridge St. Realty, LLC v. Stewart, 481 Mass. 121, 123 (2018), as the judge's “firsthand view of the presentation of evidence,” including the testimony of witnesses, places him “in the best position to judge the weight and credibility of the evidence” (citation omitted). Demoulas v. Demoulas Super Mkts., Inc., 424 Mass. 501, 509-510 (1997). We “scrutinize without deference the legal standard which the judge applied to the facts” (citation omitted). Cambridge St. Realty, LLC, supra.

The tenant asserts that the judge made a clear error in his findings regarding the tenant's employment status and financial condition. The tenant testified that he was having difficulty working because he became ill, causing him to fall behind on his rent. However, because this was a no-fault eviction of a tenant at will, neither the tenant's financial situation nor his employment status was relevant to the summary process action. See Davis v. Comerford, 483 Mass. 164, 166 n.4 (2019) (“A tenancy at will may be terminated any time by the will of the parties” [quotation and citation omitted]). Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the judge misinterpreted or mischaracterized the documents and testimony. There was no error.

Additionally, the tenant challenges the adjudication of his counterclaims in favor of the landlord. At trial, the tenant claimed that the landlord's refusal to offer a lease renewal, to adjust the rent amount owed based on tenant's belief that certain monies had been paid, and to accept rental assistance were all violations of G. L. c. 93A and constituted retaliation pursuant to G. L. c. 186, § 18. Other than bare assertions, the tenant produced no evidence to support his contentions, and the judge credited the testimony of the landlord's property manager. This determination was not clearly erroneous.

Furthermore, while a landlord is prohibited from discriminating against a recipient of rental assistance “because the individual is such a recipient,” there is no obligation that a landlord continue to renew a lease or accept rental assistance when there is a balance owed. DiLiddo v. Oxford St. Realty, Inc., 450 Mass. 66, 75 (2007), quoting G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (10). In the absence of a written lease, a landlord can evict a tenant for no cause provided proper notice is given to the tenant. See G. L. c. 186, § 12; Davis, 483 Mass. at 166 n.4. There was no error in the judge finding for the landlord on the tenant's counterclaims.⁴

Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

2.   The landlord sought to amend his pleading to seek the amount owed, but the judge denied the amendment. The landlord did not cross appeal and thus the owed rent is not relevant to this appeal.

3.   The tenant does not allege error concerning the judge's ruling on his G. L. c. 186, § 14 claim.

4.   The tenant's claim that the judge erred in finding that his then-active MCAD complaints had been resolved is unavailing. The judge made no such finding, instead stating that “[t]he evidence at trial was unclear whether the [MCAD] actions are pending and their status” and noting that “[n]o objective evidence was submitted.” And as discussed supra, dismissal of these claims was not error regardless of their status with MCAD.