Diliddo v. Oxford Street Realty, Inc.

876 N.E.2d 421 (Mass. 2007)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

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.