Yes. A tenant in a rent controlled mobile home park can ask the Housing Court to review a rent board’s approval of a rent increase, but only for the park where that tenant lives. In this published decision of the Massachusetts Appeals Court, which is binding statewide, the court also held that a board that departs from a property’s assessed value when setting rent must explain why, based on the evidence in front of it.
What happened
A company that operates three manufactured housing parks in Chicopee asked the city’s mobile home rent control board to approve rent increases at all three parks. The tenant lived in one of them, where rent had not changed since 2011. Through her lawyer, she objected in writing and at the hearing. She argued that the board should value the park at its city assessed value, which was much lower than the operator’s appraisal, and that land rent the operator paid to family trusts should not count as an operating expense. After one hybrid hearing, partly on Zoom, the board approved all three increases in one decision, using the operator’s appraisal. A Housing Court judge set the whole decision aside because of audio problems on Zoom, and the operator appealed.
What the court decided
In Ducharme v. Mobile Home Rent Control Board of Chicopee, No. 24-P-1132 (Mass. App. Ct. May 22, 2026), the court vacated the Housing Court judgment and decided four things.
The Housing Court had jurisdiction. The special law creating the board names only the District and Superior Courts for review. The Housing Court still has concurrent jurisdiction, because G.L. c. 185C, § 3 gives it jurisdiction over all housing problems affecting the health, safety and welfare of occupants. The court relied on Quinn v. Rent Control Bd. of Peabody, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 357 (1998), which treated a suit to correct an illegal mobile home rent increase as a housing problem.
The tenant had standing only for her own park. Under G.L. c. 30A, § 14, only a person aggrieved by an agency decision may seek court review. The tenant was hurt by the increase at her park. She did not live in the other two parks and did not show any injury from their increases. One combined hearing and decision did not change that. See Ginther v. Commissioner of Ins., 427 Mass. 319 (1998).
The Zoom problems were not enough to undo the decision. A court may set aside an agency decision made on unlawful procedure only if a party’s substantial rights may have been prejudiced. G.L. c. 30A, § 14(7). The tenant’s lawyer attended in person, filed written objections, and argued them, and the board discussed those objections at length. She offered no evidence that any Zoom participant from her park was hampered, and did not ask to present testimony on that point in the Housing Court.
The board had to explain its valuation. The special act presumes the property’s fair market value is its assessed value, unless the board finds on the evidence that another value fits the case better. The board gave two reasons for using the appraisal: its own past practice, and that the assessed value might leave the owner with a loss. The court held those reasons were not enough. A board decision must state its reasons on each necessary issue of fact. G.L. c. 30A, § 11(8). The court sent the valuation of her park back to the board for findings and dismissed her challenge to the other two parks. It did leave in place the board’s decision to count the land rent as a reasonable expense, citing the board’s broad discretion under Chelmsford Trailer Park, Inc. v. Chelmsford, 393 Mass. 186 (1984).
What this means for you
If you live in a rent controlled manufactured housing community, you have a real way to challenge a rent increase. The board must follow its formula and must give reasons, especially when it uses a higher value than the city assessment. That value drives the owner’s allowed profit, and your rent.
There are limits. You can challenge only the increase at the park where you live, unless you have proof the other increases hurt you. Problems with a remote hearing will not win the case by themselves. If you cannot hear or participate, say so at the hearing, ask for a continuance, and be ready to prove how it affected you. Raise every objection with the board itself. The court reviewed only arguments made to the board.
What to do now
- Get a copy of the owner’s rent increase request and supporting papers.
- File written objections before the hearing. Point to the assessed value and any expense you think is not reasonable.
- Attend the hearing. If audio or video fails, object on the record and ask for a continuance.
- Read the board’s written decision closely. Check whether it explains each key finding, including any valuation above the assessment.
- Act fast. Court review has a short filing deadline.
If this is your situation, call Doubleday Law at (617) 575-2006 or tell us what happened. Housing Court deadlines are short.
