It can. In an October 2026 decision, the Appeals Court upheld a finding that an owner who accepted monthly payments without reserving its rights created a tenancy at will, so its demand for far more money was an unfair practice and an interference with quiet enjoyment. The court also held that a judge erred in cutting the tenants’ attorney’s fees based only on small damages and a short trial. This is an unpublished Appeals Court decision under Rule 23.0, which courts may cite as persuasive but not as binding precedent.
What happened
The tenants had lived in a mobile home park for more than 23 years. In March 2020, after they defaulted on a loan, their home was repossessed and conveyed to the park owner. From October 2020 through 2021, the tenants paid, and the owner accepted, between $214 and $217 a month. In January 2022, the owner served a notice to quit claiming the tenants owed $12,778.74 in use and occupancy, based on a $1,000 per month figure from an earlier case, and then sued for nonpayment. The tenants counterclaimed under G.L. c. 93A and G.L. c. 186, § 14. The judge entered summary judgment for the tenants on possession, and after trial found for them on both counterclaims. The judge awarded $642.57 in damages, but cut the tenants’ $12,640 fee request to $3,500.
What the court decided
In Hayastan Industries, Inc. v. Guz, No. 24-P-1446 (Mass. App. Ct. October 7, 2026) (Rule 23.0 decision), the Appeals Court affirmed the dismissal of the eviction and the findings of liability, vacated the fee award, and sent the fee question back to the trial judge.
Tenancy at will. The owner argued the occupants were only tenants at sufferance. The judge found that by accepting the monthly payments, the owner created a tenancy at will at a rent well below $1,000, and that the burden was on the owner to say it was not creating a new tenancy. A later notice did say payments would not create a tenancy, but the owner had already accepted several payments before serving it. The court held these findings were not clearly erroneous. The owner relied on Corcoran Mgt. Co. v. Withers, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 736 (1987), but in that case the tenant had signed a written agreement that accepting money would not be a waiver. Because the $1,000 figure was never the agreed rent, the tenants did not owe it, and the eviction for nonpayment failed.
Quiet enjoyment. The owner waived its challenge to the G.L. c. 186, § 14 finding by citing no legal authority. In any event, what matters is the landlord’s conduct, not its intentions. Cruz Mgt. Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782, 789 (1994).
Chapter 93A. Demanding significantly more rent than was agreed could mislead tenants into paying what they do not owe, and the judge did not clearly err in finding it unfair and deceptive. Separately, a landlord’s willful violation of G.L. c. 186, § 14 is itself an unfair practice under the Attorney General’s regulations. 940 Code Mass. Regs. § 3.17(6)(f). The judge found the violation willful and knowing.
Attorney’s fees. Fee-shifting laws exist to deter unlawful conduct and to make sure people with small claims can get a lawyer. Ferman v. Sturgis Cleaners, Inc., 481 Mass. 488, 492 (2019). The tenants’ lawyers charged no advance fee and relied on a fee award. The case involved summary judgment motions, several hearings and a contested deposition. A small amount of damages alone is not a reason to reduce fees, and a properly documented lodestar is generally reasonable. Hidalgo v. Watch City Constr. Corp., 497 Mass. 319 (2026). Because the judge relied only on the small damages and short trial, the fee cut was error. The tenants were also awarded appellate fees. Yorke Mgt. v. Castro, 406 Mass. 17, 19 (1989).
What this means for you
If the owner of your home keeps accepting your monthly payments without reserving its rights, you may have become a tenant at will at that amount. That means a sudden demand for back charges at a much higher rate may be unlawful.
Massachusetts quiet enjoyment and consumer protection laws shift reasonable attorney’s fees to the landlord when the tenant wins. A judge should not cut those fees just because the damages were small.
One caution: a landlord who clearly reserves its rights when accepting payments may keep its claim to possession.
What to do now
- Keep proof of every payment you make and every payment the owner accepts.
- Save any receipts, check endorsements or letters that say payments are accepted only for use and occupancy.
- If you get a notice demanding back charges at a higher rate, do not assume you owe it. Get advice.
- Respond to any eviction case on time and consider counterclaims under G.L. c. 186, § 14 and c. 93A.
- Ask about attorney’s fees, even if your damages seem small.
If this is your situation, call Doubleday Law at (617) 575-2006 or tell us what happened. Housing Court deadlines are short.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
