Arlene Omosefunmi v. Sandra Barros

This is a summary process action brought to recover possession of the subject rental premises located at 182 Whipple Street, 2nd Floor, Fall River Massachusetts ("Premises") for non payment of rent. Both parties appeared pro se. Prior to trial the parties stipulated that the monthly rent was $900.00 due on the first of the month and that the Defendant had resided in the premises since April 2019. Based upon the credible testimony and evidence presented at trial and drawing reasonable inferences therefrom the Court finds the following;

1. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Premises located located at 182 Whipple Street, 2nd Floor, Fall River Massachusetts;

2. The Defendant has resided in the Premises since April 2019;

3. The rent for the Premises is $900.00 per month due on the first of each month;

4. On December 3, 2019 the Plaintiff caused a 14 Day Notice to Quit for Non-payment of Rent to be served upon the Defendant. I find this notice to be legally sufficient for the purposes intended;

5. On December 26, 2019 the Plaintiff caused a Summary Process Summons and Complaint to be served upon the Defendant. I find this Summons and Complaint to be legally sufficient for the purposes intended;

6. On January 16, 2020 the Defendant filed an answer and counterclaims to the Plaintiffs complaint;

At trial the Plaintiff testified that she was owed Decembers rent of $900.00 and since the filing of this matter that January 2020 was unpaid as well. The Court allowed her motion to amend the complaint account annexed to reflect the additional $900.00 that was now past due and payable bringing the total sought to $1800.00. While she did not keep a ledger reflecting rental payments missed by the Defendant, Plaintiff did provide copies of receipts indicating payments that had been received from the Defendant. The Court credits her testimony.

The Defendant disputed the amounts owed and claimed to be witholding any amounts past due because of conditions in her apartment. She claimed to have paid $500.00 of the December rent but the receipts provided by the Plaintiff contravened the information of the Defendant concerning the payment of Decembers rent. As such I do not find the testimony of the Defendant to be credible on the issue of accounting for rent paid.

With respect to her conditions based defense and counterclaims, the Defendant testified that she had complained to the Plaintiff for a lengthy period of time concerning rodents and other sundry deficiencies to no avail. She finally contacted the Board of Health and an inspection was conducted on November 25, 2019. The Correction Order (Defendant's Exhibit 1) noted several deficiencies with the premises and ordered the Plaintiff to address the deficiencies within certain prescribed time frames.

Implied Warranty of Habitability

There exists with respect to every residential tenancy, an implied warranty of habitability that the premises are fit for human habitation. A landlord is in breach of the warranty where there exist defects that may materially affect the health or safety of the occupants. Boston Housing Authority v. Hemingway, 363 Mass. 184 , 199 (1973). A breach of the implied warranty of habitability occurs from the point in time that the landlord knew or should have known of a substantial defect or substantial Sanitary Code violation in the apartment.

M.G.L. c. 239, s. 8A provides that a tenant shall be entitled to raise as a defense or counterclaim "any claim against the plaintiff relating to or arising out of such property, rental, tenancy, or occupancy for breach of warranty...." Where the defense or counterclaim is based upon the condition of the premises or services provided to the premises by the landlord, the tenant is entitled to a defense to possession only if: (1) the landlord knew or should have known of the conditions before the tenant was in arrears in his rent; (2) the landlord does not show that the tenant caused the conditions; and (3) the landlord does not show that the conditions cannot be remedied unless the premises are vacated. The landlord is not entitled to recover possession of the premises if the court finds that the amount of rent due the landlord equals or is less than the amount due the tenant on his counterclaims and defenses. If the court finds that the amount of rent due the landlord is greater than the amount due the tenant on his counterclaims and defenses, the landlord is not entitled to recover possession provided the tenant pays the balance due the landlord within seven (7) days of the tenant's receipt of the court's decision.

In the instant case, evidence was presented to the court tending to prove that some defective conditions existed in the premises during the tenancy. (See Defendant's Exhibit 1). After review of the deficiencies the Court notes that there was no inidaction of rodent infestation. The remaining deficiencies I find are de minimus in nature and do not rise to the level of a compensable breach of the implied warranty of habitability or breaching quiet enjoyment . See Boston Housing Authority v. Hemingway, supra. Additionally, in rebuttal, Plaintiff provided a report indicating compliance with the Correction Order by January 10, 2020 which I find, given the seasonal nature of Defendants complaints, is within a reasonable time of being reported. (Plaintiffs Exhibit 2) Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as to defendant's counterclaim for breach of the implied warranty of habitability.

Interference with Quiet Enjoyment

G.L. c. 186, s. 14 is commonly referred to as the statutory covenant of quiet enjoyment. The statute provides that any landlord who "directly or indirectly interferes with the quiet enjoyment of any residential premises" shall be liable for "actual or consequential damages or three (3) month's rent, whichever is greater. The statute imposes liability where the landlord's conduct causes a serious interference with tenant's quiet enjoyment of the premises. A serious interference is an act or omission that impairs the character and value of the leased premises. Doe v. New Bedford Housing Authority, 417 Mass. 273 , 284-285 (1994); Lowery v. Robinson, n Mass. App. Ct. 982 (1982).

In the instant case, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff, breached Defendant's quiet enjoyment of the premises by allowing the defective conditions of the premises to exist without remedy. The court shall not find for defendant on such a claim given the previous finding that the deficiencies were minor in nature and that upon demonstrable notice the Plaintiff addressed them expeditiously.

Order and Entry of Judgment. For the above-stated reasons after taking all evidence into consideration and drawing reasonable infrences therefrom;

1. Judgment for the Plaintiff for possession, damages of $1,800.00 and costs.

2. Judgment for the Plaintiff on Defendant's counterclaims.

3. Execution to issue in due course.