Slavin v. Rent Control Board

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · Property

PropertyRent controlAdministrative lawLandlord-tenantcertificate of evictionrent controlnotice to curelease covenant

Facts

The landlord sought a certificate of eviction for a rent-controlled unit, alleging that the tenant had violated a lease provision barring long-term occupancy by anyone not named in the tenancy without the landlord's written assent. The landlord applied under a Brookline by-law authorizing a certificate when a tenant violates a tenancy covenant and fails to cure after receiving written notice from the landlord. The application was dated December 3, 1985, but the landlord had not previously sent written notice of the alleged violation giving the tenant an opportunity to cure. A later December 10 letter was only a notice to quit and deliver possession, not the notice contemplated by the by-law.

Issue

Whether the Board properly denied a certificate of eviction when the landlord applied under a by-law provision requiring prior written notice of the violation and an opportunity to cure, but had not provided such notice before filing the application. Also implicated was whether courts could excuse that noncompliance based on speculation that the tenant would not have cured anyway.

Rule

When a local rent-control by-law authorizes a certificate of eviction only if the tenant has violated a tenancy covenant and failed to cure after receiving written notice from the landlord, the landlord must provide that written notice and opportunity to cure before filing the application. The Board's interpretation of its governing by-law is entitled to weight, and noncompliance cannot be excused by speculation that cure would have been futile.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cambridge, Nora Feldman rented a rent-controlled unit to Luis Ortega under a tenancy agreement forbidding pets without written permission. After hearing that Luis had adopted a dog, Nora immediately filed for a certificate of eviction under a local provision authorizing eviction when a tenant violates a tenancy covenant and fails to cure after receiving written notice from the landlord. Two days later, Nora mailed Luis a letter describing the pet violation and giving him seven days to remove the dog.

How should the rent board rule on Nora's application?

Explanation. The governing rule is that where the invoked eviction ground requires a tenant's violation plus failure to cure after written notice, the landlord must provide that written notice and opportunity to cure before filing the application. A later letter does not satisfy the prerequisite retroactively. The board may insist on this orderly sequence rather than speculate about what might have happened. (Derived from Slavin v. Rent Control Board (n.d.).)