Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Eviction Habitability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court weighs eviction appeal over habitability, disability accommodation and stipulation process
Summary
The court heard competing claims in an eviction appeal: tenants argued the landlord failed to repair health-and-safety violations and that a disabled co-tenant was denied a reasonable accommodation; the landlord said tenants waived defenses in a stipulated agreement reached through housing-court mediation.
The Appeals Court heard arguments Feb. 13 in PRI Old Mill Glen LLC v. Sawyer (docket 24P594), an eviction appeal in which tenants challenged a trial judge’s finding that the housing-code and habitability complaints were de minimis and in which defense counsel pressed that a disabled co-tenant — identified in the record as Tyler Sawyer — was effectively denied a reasonable accommodation and a chance to participate in the trial.
Brett Thompson, representing tenants James and Tyler Sawyer, told the panel that undisputed Board of Health inspection reports showed a defective bathroom ventilation system and other sanitation issues the board had identified as conditions that “may endanger health, safety, or well-being.” Thompson said the Code violations persisted after the board’s deadlines and that the housing judge therefore erred in treating the violations as de minimis and concluding the tenants had no viable warranty-of-habitability defense under G.L. c.239, §8A.
Thompson also argued the landlord’s manager testified the tenants’ ventilation complaints were substantial, that the board’s October 2022 order gave the landlord five days to correct conditions, but that the defect persisted into 2023. He said the landlord’s subsequent replacement of the fan came months after the initial order and the judge’s finding that the matter had been remedied was clearly erroneous.
On accommodation, Thompson said Tyler Sawyer — who the father described at trial as autistic — attempted during trial to signal the court and was told not to “raise your hand like a classroom.” Thompson argued the trial court had an affirmative duty to engage in an interactive process to afford a reasonable accommodation so the disabled occupant could be heard.
Appellee counsel Jeffrey Turk replied that the tenants knowingly waived procedural defenses when they signed a stipulation and elected to proceed to trial; Turk said housing-court specialists routinely confirm stipulations and that the record shows parties chose to proceed to trial rather than delay. He also said the tenant proffers lacked a proffer or offer of proof about what the disabled son would have added beyond testimony given by his father and that the judge reasonably found overlapping testimony was redundant.
The panel questioned both sides about the evidentiary record, the housing specialist mediation process, the timing of the board-of-health reinspection and whether appellate relief is required where the tenants declined the judge’s posttrial chance to preserve tenancy by paying arrearages or entering a payment plan. The court took the case under advisement.
