SJC hears whether lease move-out cleaning clauses violate Massachusetts security-deposit law

The Supreme Judicial Court heard argument on certified questions about whether move-out lease provisions that require professional cleaning, carpet repair or "similar refurbishment" violate the state security-deposit statute.

Attorney Keith Sachs, representing plaintiffs Rhonda Peebles and Joshua Berger, told the court that the term "refurbishment" should be read to encompass routine cleaning and touch-up painting and that charging tenants for those items improperly shifts landlord costs onto tenants. "If a fresh coat of paint or professional cleaning remedies whatever the issue is, then we're talking about reasonable wear and tear," Sachs said.

The court's questions focused on two issues certified by Judge Gorton of the federal court: (1) whether the phrase "painting, carpet repair, or similar refurbishment" in the certified question describes conduct that falls outside the statutory concept of damages; and (2) whether lease provisions that require tenants to pay for professional cleaning at move-out (or face charges) constitute a violation or an unlawful waiver under the security-deposit framework discussed in argument as "15(b)(6)" and "15(b)(8)."

Justices pressed…