DILIDDO V. OXFORD STREET REALTY, INC.
876 N.E.2d 421 (Mass. 2007)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Diliddo (P) appealed a summary judgment that was entered in favor of
Oxford (D) because D refused to participate in a rent subsidy program because D did not like
the terms.
FACTS: Massachusetts law prohibits landlords from discriminating against tenants who
receive public housing subsidies either 'because the individual is such a recipient,' or
'because of any requirement' of the subsidy program. The department created a standard form
lease to be signed by all landlords and tenants participating in the program (AHVP lease).
Under the AHVP lease, tenancy is for a term of one year and is automatically extended from
year to year unless either the landlord or the tenant gives sixty days' notice of election
not to renew the lease. The AHVP lease does not allow either the landlord or the tenant to
terminate the lease early, except for certain enumerated reasons that constitute 'good
cause.' In those cases, a landlord may terminate the lease on thirty days' notice, and a
tenant on one month's notice. Among the circumstances that constitute 'good cause' under the
AHVP lease are 'when the Tenant becomes a participant in another housing subsidy program, or
when the tenant secures Suitable Permanent Housing. P was disabled after an automobile
accident in 1994, was issued an AHVP voucher. P viewed an apartment located at 2 Belvedere
Place, in Cambridge. A real estate agent (agent) working for D, showed her the unit. P was
accompanied by Lisa Hartnett, a housing advocate from CASCAP, Inc., a local nonprofit agency
that worked to help AHVP voucher holders locate suitable apartments. Lillian Pepi was the
owner of the building and D was the property manager of the building, responsible for
locating, identifying, interviewing, and selecting tenants. P expressed interest in renting
the unit, and informed the agent that she held an AHVP voucher. The agent informed P that
she could rent the unit, and D accepted a fee of $750 from P for locating the apartment.
Indeck, the owner of D, was familiar with the form lease required under the so-called
'Section 8' Federal housing subsidy program. He had never seen an AHVP form. After
consulting with two attorneys and with Pepi's son, Indeck concluded that several of the AHVP
form lease provisions were, he testified, 'unreasonable and excessive.' Indeck objected to
the provisions of the AHVP lease that would terminate the lease on one calendar months
notice 'when the Tenant becomes a participant in another housing subsidy program, or when
the Tenant secures Suitable Permanent Housing. Indeck testified at his deposition that he
believed that these provisions placed an 'unreasonable' burden on landlords. Indeck also
objected to a provision allowing the local housing authority and the department access to
the landlord's premises and records for audit purposes, which he found 'invasive'; to a
provision that would vary the tenant's share of the rent if the tenant's income changed; and
to a provision requesting the owner's Social Security number. D attempted to persuade CASCAP
and the local housing authority to modify the lease provisions to which he objected. They
refused and D refused to sign the lease. Oxford (D) refused to participate in the program
because it did not like the terms. P filed a complaint with the human rights commission of
Cambridge and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD). Both Diliddo (P)
and D filed cross motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment was entered in favor of the
D from which P appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment