Slavin v. Rent Control Board of Brookline

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · Property

PropertyLandlord and TenantAssignments and SubleasesRent ControlAdministrative Lawresidential leaseconsent to assignmentsublease

Facts

The Brookline rent control by-law required a landlord seeking possession of a controlled unit to obtain a certificate of eviction from the board if the tenant had violated an obligation of tenancy. The lease prohibited assignment, subletting, or occupancy by anyone other than named individuals and certain family members without the landlord's prior written consent. After a hearing, the board found that the tenant had allowed an unauthorized person to occupy the apartment without written consent. The board nevertheless denied the certificate because it concluded that the lease implicitly required the landlord to consider proposed occupants and not withhold consent unreasonably, and it found the landlord had categorically refused any replacement occupant after the original cotenant moved out.

Issue

Does a residential lease clause requiring the landlord's written consent before assignment, sublease, or additional occupancy imply a legal duty that the landlord not unreasonably withhold consent? Also, did the Brookline Rent Control Board have authority to decide that legal question in determining whether the tenant violated an obligation of tenancy under the by-law?

Rule

In this context, a residential lease provision requiring landlord consent to assignment, sublease, or other occupancy does not itself imply a duty on the landlord to act reasonably in withholding consent unless the landlord has agreed to such a limitation. Under the Brookline rent control by-law and special act, the rent control board may interpret lease provisions and resolve mixed questions of fact and law necessary to determine whether asserted facts comply with the by-law, but its legal determinations are subject to judicial de novo review.

🔒

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.

Nina Alvarez rents a rent-controlled apartment in Cambridge from Harbor Elm Properties under a lease stating that no part of the premises may be sublet and no person other than the named tenant and listed family members may occupy the unit beyond a temporary visit without the landlord's prior written consent. When Nina asks to add her coworker, Omar Reed, as a roommate, the landlord refuses without explanation, and Omar moves in anyway for six months.

If the landlord seeks an eviction certificate based on violation of the lease, what is the strongest argument for the landlord under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority held that in the residential rent-control context, a lease requiring landlord consent to assignment, sublease, or added occupancy does not, by itself, impose a duty on the landlord to act reasonably in withholding consent. Unless the landlord expressly agreed to such a limitation, an arbitrary refusal still leaves unauthorized occupancy as a lease violation.