Not when you never agreed to give that claim up. The Appeals Court vacated a Housing Court order saying that the landlord’s dismissal of its eviction case barred the tenant from ever suing for abuse of process, because the tenant objected to that term and there was no basis to cut off a claim she had not yet brought. This is an unpublished Appeals Court decision under Rule 23.0, which courts may cite as persuasive but not as binding precedent.
What happened
After a long and contentious summary process case, and several attempts by the landlord to dismiss it, the parties came to court to work out the terms of a dismissal. The tenant was willing to have the landlord’s claims dismissed with prejudice. She objected to the landlord’s proposed wording, which would have dismissed any claims or potential claims by both sides relating to the case. The judge signed the tenant’s version, limited to the landlord’s claims. But in a handwritten order issued at the same time, while noting that the parties had not agreed to waive all claims that could have been made, that the tenant had asserted no counterclaims, and that none would be compulsory, the judge ordered that the dismissal would bar any abuse of process claim arising out of the case. He denied the tenant’s motion to clarify, calling the language prophylactic advice.
What the court decided
The Appeals Court vacated the parts of the orders that barred a future abuse of process claim, and otherwise affirmed the dismissal, in Chelmsford Woods Residences II, LP v. Melendez, No. 25-P-167 (Mass. App. Ct. December 9, 2025) (Rule 23.0 decision).
It was not what the parties agreed. The tenant objected at the hearing and in her proposed order to giving up any claims she could bring. The judge himself had said it would be inappropriate to dismiss such claims with prejudice. The court understood the judge’s wish to end a hard fought case, but saw no basis to preclude a claim not yet asserted.
How claim preclusion works. A dismissal with prejudice is a valid, final judgment for claim preclusion purposes. Jarosz v. Palmer, 436 Mass. 526 (2002). Claim preclusion bars later litigation of matters that were or should have been decided in the earlier case. Heacock v. Heacock, 402 Mass. 21 (1988). But it does not apply when a party lacked the incentive or opportunity to bring the claim in the earlier suit. Baby Furniture Warehouse Store, Inc. v. Meubles D&F Ltée, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 27 (2009).
Too early to decide. Abuse of process requires that legal process was used for an ulterior or illegitimate purpose, causing damage. Psy-Ed Corp. v. Klein, 459 Mass. 697 (2011). Deciding such a claim takes a careful look at facts like motive and intent. The tenant had not filed one, and the record did not show which of the landlord’s actions she would challenge. So no one could yet say whether she had the opportunity or incentive to raise it in the eviction case. Those questions can be decided if and when she files. They should not have been cut off in advance.
The court expressed no view on whether any such claim would succeed, or on any special motion to dismiss the landlord might bring against it.
What this means for you
When a landlord drops an eviction case, the exact words of the dismissal matter. A landlord may try to fold in a release of every claim you might have, including claims about how the landlord used the court process against you. You do not have to accept that. Here, the tenant had not agreed, and the court held the judge had no basis to add it.
This decision also explains a key limit on claim preclusion. Dismissing the landlord’s claims with prejudice ends those claims. It does not automatically wipe out your separate claims, especially ones you had no fair chance to bring in the eviction case.
Keep the limits in mind. The court did not say the tenant has a winning abuse of process claim. Those claims turn on hard questions of motive and intent, and a landlord may answer one with a special motion to dismiss. The court only kept the door open.
What to do now
- Read any proposed dismissal or agreement word for word before you sign or agree in court.
- Object on the record to language that releases your own claims if you do not intend to give them up.
- Offer your own written proposed order that limits the dismissal to the landlord’s claims.
- If the judge’s order goes further than what you agreed, file a timely motion to clarify and a notice of appeal.
- Keep records of the landlord’s filings and conduct in case you later bring your own claim.
If this is your situation, call Doubleday Law at (617) 575-2006 or tell us what happened. Housing Court deadlines are short.
