LENNHOFF PROPERTIES LLC v. JOHN HENRY (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

On November 27, 2024, the landlord, Cabot Lodge, LLC, through its managing agent, Lennhoff Properties, LLC, served the defendant, John Henry (tenant), with a rent increase notice that offered him a new tenancy beginning on January 1, 2025, and ordered him to quit if he did not agree to the increased rate. The tenant did not sign the notice, and a summons and complaint were served on the tenant and filed in the Northeast Housing Court. Following a trial, a judgment of possession entered for the landlord, and the judge denied the tenant's motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the tenant challenges several of the judge's rulings on jurisdictional and procedural grounds. We affirm.

Discussion. The Housing Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the summary process action. The tenant's reliance on Rental Prop. Mgt. Servs. v. Hatcher, 479 Mass. 542 (2018), is unavailing. In that case, the Supreme Judicial Court held that, where the plaintiff listed on the complaint in a summary process action “is neither the owner nor the lessor of the property, the court must dismiss the complaint with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. at 543. Here, both the property manager (Lennhoff Properties, LLC) and the owner (Cabot Lodge, LLC) were listed on the complaint, and there was no dispute at trial regarding the identity of the owner.²

We reject the tenant's claim that the action should have been dismissed because the landlord's summons and complaint were filed late. The landlord attempted to file the summons and complaint on the designated entry date of January 13, 2025. After the clerk rejected the filing for not including the return of service for the notice to quit, the landlord corrected the error and the summons and complaint were docketed the next day. Housing Court Standing Order 1-04(I) (2004), which outlines time standards for cases, provides that judges have discretion to “exercise sound judgment in a manner that affords the parties a fair opportunity to develop and present their claims to the court.” See Morse v. Ortiz-Vazquez, 99 Mass. App. Ct. 474, 480 (2021) (Housing Court judges must “apply the rules in a fair, reasonable and practical manner consistent with the legitimate interests of all parties” [citation omitted]). The judge did not err or abuse his discretion in allowing the action to proceed after the corrected summons and complaint were docketed on January 14, 2025.³

For the first time on appeal, the tenant claims that the judgment should be vacated because the attorney who filed the summons and complaint was not present at the first-tier court event and the tenant was not served with a notice of appearance for the landlord's attorney who attended. Because those issues were not raised below, they may not be argued on appeal. See Carey v. New England Organ Bank, 446 Mass. 270, 285 (2006).

The judge did not abuse his discretion or violate the tenant's due process rights by allowing the landlord's motion to continue the trial on the morning of the original trial date. The decision whether to grant or deny a motion to continue is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. See Beninati v. Beninati, 18 Mass. App. Ct. 529, 534 (1984). “[A] judge's discretionary decision constitutes an abuse of discretion where we conclude the judge made ‘a clear error of judgment in weighing’ the factors relevant to the decision ․ such that the decision falls outside the range of reasonable alternatives.” L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass 169, 185 n.27 (2014). Because the landlord's attorney was unable to attend the trial because of a sudden illness, the judge acted within his discretion in continuing the trial.

Nor did the judge abuse his discretion in denying the tenant's motion for reconsideration. A party seeking reconsideration must “specify (1) changed circumstances such as (a) newly discovered evidence or information, or (b) a development of relevant law; or (2) a particular and demonstrable error in the original ruling or decision.” (quotation and citation omitted). Audubon Hill S. Condominium Ass'n v. Community Ass'n Underwriters of Am., Inc., 82 Mass. App. Ct. 461, 470 (2012). Because, at the hearing on his motion, the tenant did not identify any newly discovered evidence or any error of law made at trial, the motion was properly denied.

Lastly, we discern no abuse of discretion in the judge's failure to compel the landlord to produce evidence of the rent raises of all the other tenants in the landlord's building. The tenant does not articulate, nor can we discern, how the production of this information would have supported the tenant's position at trial.⁴

Judgment affirmed.

Order denying motion for reconsideration affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

2.   Relatedly, the judge did not exclude an “integral exhibit” by failing to admit the property management agreement in evidence. The trial transcript shows that the judge read the agreement, and the tenant did not ask that it be admitted in evidence.

3.   Although the docket does not show that the judge ruled on the defendant's February 7, 2025 motion to dismiss on this ground, the effective denial of that motion is evident from the fact that the action proceeded to trial. The judge denied another of the tenant's motions to dismiss, filed June 2, 2025, that raised substantially the same issue.

4.   We deny the tenant's motions to supplement and expand the record in this court. Each of those motions addresses alleged conduct by the landlord after the tenant filed this appeal. Because these new claims were not litigated in the proceedings below, they are not properly before us now. See Mass. R. A. P. 8 (a), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1611 (2019). The tenant also argues that the Housing Court judge erred in his August 8, 2025 denial of the tenant's motion to waive his appeal bond. The tenant appealed this issue to a single justice of this court, who resolved it in an order dated September 19, 2025. That order is not before us now.