RITA DANUSIS & another [Note 1] VS. JOHN LONGO & another [Note 2]

PERRETTA, J. This is an appeal by Rita Danusis and the Kendall Lane Tenants Association (collectively referred to as tenants) from a summary judgment granted by a Superior Court judge in favor of John Longo and the Salisbury board of health (board). By their complaint, the tenants sought a determination that they were entitled to the protections afforded by the longstanding Manufactured Housing Act (Act), G. L. c. 140, s.s. 32A-32S [Note 4]. The Superior Court judge determined that the complaint was not timely filed. He also denied the tenants' then pending motion to amend the complaint by adding a count under G. L. c. 93A. Because we conclude that the tenants' complaint was timely filed, that they are entitled to the protections provided by the Act, and that their motion to amend the complaint should have been allowed, we reverse the judgment.

1. The Manufactured Housing Act. A brief overview of the statutes involved in this case would be helpful to an understanding of the Act. Sections 32A through 32S of the Act provide comprehensive and substantial fights to owners of manufactured homes who place such structures upon land rented by them [Note 5]. These fights and protections have been enacted because -[b]oth the Legislature and the courts of the Commonwealth have recognized that manufactured housing communities provide a

Page 256

viable, affordable housing option to many elderly persons and families of low and moderate income, who are often lacking in resources and deserving of legal protection." Greenfield Country Estates Tenants Assn. v. Deep, 423 Mass. 81, 83 (1996). See Commonwealth v. DeCotis, 366 Mass. 234, 243 & n.7 (1974); Quinn v. Rent Control Bd. of Peabody, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 357, 359-360 & n.4 (1998); St. 1986, c. 317, an emergency proclamation amending s. 32L and adding s. 32R to the Act [Note 6]. Whether the rights and protections afforded by the Act [Note 7] are available to an owner of a manufactured home depends upon whether the home is situated in a "manufactured housing community" as that term is defined in s. 32F, as amended by St. 1991, c. 481, s. 19, that is, "[a]ny lot or tract of land upon which three or more manufactured homes occupied for dwelling purposes are located . . ." Because the tenants reside in manufactured homes situated on land owned by Longo, the primary issue on appeal is whether he is using the land to operate a manufactured housing community.

2. The facts. It is against the backdrop of these pertinent provisions of the Act that we recite the undisputed facts as they appear in the materials submitted by the parties on their motions to dismiss or for summary judgment [Note 8]. In 1973, Longo, a real estate developer, purchased approximately thirty-three acres of land in Salisbury. Thereafter, he submitted a subdivision plan of the parcel to the local planning board. Pursuant to his plan, which was approved in October, 1976, the parcel was divided

Page 257

into forty-nine single-family house lots [Note 9]. Access to these lots, as can be seen from the appended sketch, is gained either from Lafayette Road (U.S. Route 1) or Kendall Lane [Note 10].

Sometime in 1978, Longo began to allow the owners of manufactured homes to place their structures upon certain of the subdivided lots owned by him. Next, in January of 1982, Longo conveyed twenty-four of the forty-nine subdivided lots owned by him to himself as trustee of a realty trust. Longo rents, on a monthly basis, seventeen of those twenty-four lots to owners of manufactured homes, one home per subdivision lot [Note 11]. Each manufactured home rests upon a foundation and has appropriate utilities as would conventional stick-built housing. Each of the seventeen lots has its own septic system, provided by Longo, who also pays the real estate taxes on each of the separately assessed lots. The tenants pay for their own utilities and water.

As alleged by the tenants in their complaint and affidavits, they are retired, disabled, of modest means, and are living on fixed incomes. They claim that, throughout the years, Longo has failed to maintain the property in question, has increased rents, has charged excessive rents, has terminated various tenancies, and has threatened to terminate tenancies unless the rental increases are paid. The tenants also allege that when Longo discovered that they intended to claim coverage under the Act, he attempted to persuade certain of them to abandon their affili-

Page 258

ation with the association and represented that their rents would increase were it determined that the seventeen lots fell within the scope of the Act. The tenants, nonetheless, commencing in 1991 and continuing up to the filing of this action in 1997, complained to the board of selectmen and the defendant board of health that they were being denied their rights under the Act and Salisbury's rent control provisions.

Salisbury officials took no action in response to the tenants' concerns and complaints for about four years. In the meantime, Longo has never applied for a license to operate or maintain a manufactured housing community under s. 32F of the Act. In June, 1995, the board of selectmen determined, apparently on the basis of advisory opinions from the Attorney General of the Commonwealth and town counsel, that Longo's property fell within the scope of the Act and ordered the board of health to proceed with the licensing process. Notwithstanding the selectmen's determination, the board of health took the view that the seventeen lots did not constitute a manufactured housing community within the meaning of s. 32F and refused to proceed further.

It appears that the board of health reached its conclusion, that Longo was not required to seek a license, after a vote taken at a meeting held on March 19, 1996. That vote was unaccompanied by a written decision or any other memorialized explanation. As further alleged, the tenants did not receive any notice of the board's decision or of their right of appeal from the board's determination [Note 12]. They brought this action about twelve months later, on February 24, 1997 [Note 13].

3. The tenants' complaint. There is a threshold issue to be

Page 259

resolved before we consider the substance of the tenants' complaint, that is, whether they timely brought their action.

a. Timeliness of the complaint. In his memorandum of decision, the Superior Court judge noted that "[a]lthough not styled in the form of a c. 30A appeal, the complaint . . . appears to challenge the March 19, 1996 refusal by the Board of Health to require that Longo obtain a license under G. L. c. 140, s. 3 2. " Relying upon the limitations period set out in G. L. c. 30A, s. 14(l), the Superior Court judge concluded that the tenants' complaint was untimely because it had not been brought within thirty days of the decision of the board of health [Note 14]. Finding and concluding that there were no special circumstances warranting the tenants relief from that statutory time requirement, the Superior Court judge dismissed the complaint and entered judgment for the defendants.

There is no dispute that the tenants did not file their complaint within thirty days of the vote of the board of health. It does not follow, however, that the complaint was untimely filed. Three provisions of the Act are relevant to the question of the timeliness of the filing. We begin with s. 32B, which reads: "The board of health of any city or town, in each instance after a hearing, reasonable notice of which shall have been published once in a newspaper published in such city or town, may grant, and may suspend or revoke, licenses for . . . manufactured housing communities located within such city or town" (emphasis supplied). If Longo is using his seventeen lots for a manufactured housing community, he is required under s. 32F, as earlier noted, to obtain a license under s. 32B to do so. Finally, and controlling on the question of timeliness is s. 32K, which states that -[a]ny person aggrieved by any act, rule, order or decision of the licensing board may appeal to the superior court [Note 15]." As established by these provisions of the Act, the board of health is the licensing board.

Page 260

A local board, such as a board of health, is generally not a "state agency" within the scope of G. L. c. 30A, s. 1(2). See Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, Lodge No. 65 v. Planning Bd. of Lawrence, 403 Mass. 531, 538 (1988); Roslindale Motor Sales, Inc. v. Police Commr: of Boston, 405 Mass. 79, 85 n.8 (1989); Fratus v. Selectmen of Yarmouth, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 605, 608 (1978). Nor did the board of health proceed in accordance with the norms of an administrative agency; notice, hearing and so forth. As to the Act, there is nothing within s. 32K or any other provision that subjects any appeal under that section to the thirty-day appeal period set out in c. 30A, s. 14(l).

Even were we to conclude that the tenants' complaint was subject to c. 30A, we also would conclude that they were entitled to circumvent the normal course of administrative review because their complaint presents special circumstances which justify an action seeking a declaration of their rights. Those special circumstances are as follows.

As we earlier stated, it was not until June, 1995, after receiving opinions from the Attorney General and town counsel, that the selectmen directed the board of health to proceed with the licensing process. Neither of the defendants (see note 12, supra) disputes the tenants' assertion that the board of health failed to give notice of any hearing or vote and never issued a written decision regarding its meeting and vote of March 19, 1996, all as required by c. 30A, s.s. 14(l) and 32B of the Act. Moreover, the selectmen and the Attorney General have expressed a view on a matter of grave public concern (see Greenfield Country Estates Tenants Assn. v. Deep, 423 Mass. at 83; Commonwealth v. DeCotis, 366 Mass. at 238; Quinn v. Rent Control Bd. of Peabody, 45 Mass. App. Ct. at 359 n.4) which is in direct conflict with that of the licensing authority, the board of health, See Board of Appeals of Rockport v. DeCarolis, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 348, 353 (1992) (recognizing special circumstances when "[t]wo distinct public bodies claiming a direct interest in the subject matter have issued conflicting orders").

Page 261

Although the tenants did not bring this action until twelve months after the vote of the board of health, we deem the delay modest, especially in light of their never having received notice of the decision. Cf. Williams v. Inspector of Bldgs. of Belmont, 341 Mass. 188, 190 (1960); Brady v. Board of Appeals of Westport, 348 Mass. 515, 520 (1965). Any delay by the tenants in seeking judicial relief has not made it difficult for the selectmen or the board of health to take any action deemed necessary to remedy the ongoing situation. Compare Yetman v. Cambridge, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 700, 707-709 (1979) (laches applied to complaint seeking interpretation of ordinance made by city seven years earlier and which provided basis for two subsequent collective bargaining agreements). Nor does any delay appear to have disadvantaged Longo.

In view of these circumstances, we conclude that the tenants' complaint was filed in a reasonably prompt manner and that their rights, if any, under the Act should be determined on the basis of the undisputed facts put before the Superior Court judge. Contrast Middleborough v. Middleborough Gas & Elec. Dept., 47 Mass. App. Ct. 655, 658 (1999).

b. Substance of the complaint. As provided in s. 32A, "[n]o person shall conduct, control, manage or operate, directly or indirectly, any . . . manufactured housing community unless he is the holder of a license granted under [s. 32B]." The term "manufactured housing community" is defined in the first paragraph of s. 32F, which reads:

"Any lot or tract of land upon which three or more manufactured homes occupied for dwelling purposes are located, including any buildings, structures, fixtures and equipment used in connection with manufactured homes shall be defined as a manufactured housing community. No lot or tract of land may be used for a manufactured housing community unless the owner or occupant thereof is the holder of a license granted under section thirty-two B" (emphasis added).

There is nothing in the Act that defines either the word "lot" or the term "tract of land." Longo argues that we should give the word "lot" the same meaning as that set out in the Subdivision Control Law, G.L. c. 41, s.s. 81K through 81GG. As defined in c. 41, s. 81L, a "lot" is an "area of land in one ownership, with definite boundaries, used, or available for use,

Page 262

as the site of one or more buildings." As for the words "tract of land," Longo states that the phrase impliedly means a parcel of land before it is subdivided into lots. Because his tract of land has been subdivided into "lots" within the meaning of s. 81L and because there is only one manufactured home on each of the subdivided lots, Longo maintains that he does not operate a "manufactured housing community" within the scope of s. 32F, that is, upon "[a]ny lot or tract of land." Although Longo's argument is as clever as his subdivision plan, it fails.

Zoning and subdivision control law definitions and concepts are seldom helpful in interpreting terms and provisions of the Manufactured Housing Act for the oft-stated reason that the former pertain to land-use issues whereas the latter concerns licensing requirements based upon an expressed legislative intent to protect elderly and disabled consumers who live on low incomes and in manufactured houses. See Granby v. Landry, 341 Mass. 443, 446 (1960); Manchester v. Phillips, 343 Mass. 591, 593 n.3 (1962); Selectmen of Wrentham v. Monson, 355 Mass. 715, 717 (1969); Selectmen of Hatfield v. Garvey, 362 Mass. 821, 825-826 (1973); Gamache v. Acushnet, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 215, 220 & n.9 (1982). Consequently, we do not accept the premise of Longo's argument, that is, that the express and implied meanings given the terms "lot" and "tract of land" for zoning and subdivision purposes are also embodied in s. 32F of the Act.

We put aside zoning and subdivision concerns and begin our analysis with the general rule that a "statute must be interpreted according to the intent of the Legislature ascertained from all its words construed by the ordinary and approved usage of the language, considered in connection with the cause of its enactment, the mischief or imperfection to be remedied and the main object to bc accomplished, to the end that the purpose of its framers may be effectuated." Industrial Fin. Corp. v. State Tax Commn., 367 Mass. 360, 364 (1975), quoting from Hanlon v. Rollins, 286 Mass. 444, 447 (1934). See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Commissioner of Ins., 397 Mass. 416, 420 (1986); Pyle v. School Comm. of S. Hadley, 423 Mass. 283, 286 (1996).

As commonly understood, a "tract" of land is simply an

expanse of land." American Heritage Dictionary 1896 (3d ed. 1992). See Black's Law Dictionary 1492 (6th ed. 1990) (tract of land is a "lot, piece or parcel of land, of greater or less size, the term not importing, in itself, any precise dimension"; a term

Page 263

"synonymous with parcel of land and does not have reference to size but to contiguous quantity of land"); Cartwright, Glossary of Real Estate Law 942 (1972) (tract defined as "[a] parcel of land. An area of real estate, frequently subdivided into smaller parcels"). Both the ordinary meaning of the term and the previously discussed purposes of the Act lead us to conclude that, as used in s. 32F, the phrase "[a]ny lot or tract of land" is sufficiently broad to comprehend a parcel of land subdivided into lots pursuant to a plan devised by, or for the benefit of, the owner who retains title to, or control of, the lots upon which manufactured homes are placed [Note 16].

That Longo conveyed title to some of the subdivided lots to himself as trustee of a real estate trust is of no consequence to our conclusion [Note 17]. Notwithstanding that conveyance, according to his own affidavit, Longo controls and manages the seventeen leased lots. He is doing so in violation of G. L. c. 140, s. 32A ("[n]o person shall conduct, control, manage or operate, directly or indirectly, any . . . manufactured housing community unless he is the holder of a license granted under [s. 32B]").

4. The motion to amend. Less than three months after filing their complaint, the tenants sought to amend it by adding a count under G. L. c. 93A. The Superior Court judge concluded that the amendment to the complaint would be futile and denied the motion [Note 18]. As stated by him in his memorandum of decision, the amendment would be futile because: Longo's failure to apply for a license pursuant to s. 32B could not form the basis of a c. 93A claim; there was no commercial activity between Longo and the tenants; and there was no evidence to support the claims that Longo's alleged failures constituted an unfair or deceptive act or practice. This determination of futility flows from the Superior Court judge's view, expressed as dictum in his

Page 264

memorandum of opinion, that Longo's subdivision plan rendered the Act inapplicable [Note 19].

Based upon our conclusion that Longo controls and manages a manufactured housing community without a license, we think that his acts or failures to act, as described in both the demand letter and the proposed amended complaint, are actionable under c. 93A by reason of G.L. c. 140, s.s. 32L(7) and 32S. The motion was filed shortly after the tenants brought their action and mailed their demand letter, both of which, in our view, were more than sufficient to put Longo on notice that should the theory of defense raised in his motion for dismissal or summary judgment and pressed on appeal fail (the inapplicability of the Act), he would have to defend against allegations that he did and does engage in acts which violate c. 93A.

In light of our determination that Longo's property is within the scope of the Act, we conclude that it was error to deny the tenants' motion to amend their complaint by adding thereto allegations of violations of c. 93A.

5. Conclusion. It follows from what we have said that the judgment dismissing the tenants' complaint is vacated and the denial of their motion to amend is reversed. The matter is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including a trial upon the tenants' complaint as amended to allege violations of G. L. c. 93A, and the entry of a judgment declaring that Longo is controlling and managing a manufactured housing community without a license.

So ordered.

Page 265

APPENDIX