Tenant appeals after housing court denies retaliation defense in for‑cause eviction; parties dispute statutory reach of §239

The Appeals Court heard argument in Tanya Coffey v. Abdullah focusing on whether the statutory retaliation defense under chapter 239, section 2A applies to ‘‘for-cause’’ (fault-based) evictions and whether the landlord met its burden to rebut a presumption of retaliatory eviction.

Counsel for the tenant, Sun Yu, argued 2A applies to ‘‘any action for summary process’’ and statutory text and recent authority support using the retaliation presumption in fault-based eviction actions when a tenant lawfully exercises a protected right. Yu urged reversal because the landlord failed to produce clear-and-convincing evidence that it would have taken the same actions ‘‘in the same manner and at the same time’’ absent the tenant’s protected conduct.

Landlord counsel, Mark Burrell, said the housing court properly found the tenancy was terminated for cause and that the court’s written findings accurately reflected the facts. Burrell proposed that the decision be remanded for the trial judge to amend or supplement factual findings (Rule 52) rather than ordering a new trial; he said the record showed repeated access disputes and interior damage that prompted the landlord’s actions.

The panel asked whether a remand for additional findings would cure any omission in the judgment, and whether the parties had adequate notice to present evidence addressing the heightened clear-and-convincing rebuttal burden. Counsel disputed whether the judge in the trial court had actually excluded the defense at trial—the transcript shows the judge allowed evidence of retaliation at the hearing but the written decision states retaliation was unavailable under §8A.

The court took the matter under advisement; no ruling was announced at argument.