Partly. The Appeals Court held that a mobile home park’s ongoing charges for using a city sewer system can be counted as an operating expense when a rent control board sets rent. But a city betterment charge for the sewer upgrade itself appears to conflict with the Attorney General’s consumer protection rules, so the court sent that piece back to the board to reconsider and explain. This is a published decision of the Appeals Court and binding statewide.
What happened
A 170-lot manufactured housing park in Chicopee had relied on a septic system that was failing. Under a consent order with the state Department of Environmental Protection, the owner had to connect the park to the city sewer. That created costs: a betterment charge the city assessed for a new pumping station, paid over twenty years; the cost of laying pipes and connecting lots; and expected yearly charges for sewer use. The owner asked the city’s mobile home rent control board for a large across-the-board rent increase based mainly on the betterment charge and the sewer usage charges, and the board approved it. Two residents challenged the increase in the Housing Court, which ruled for the board and owner, holding that the Attorney General’s manufactured housing regulations did not apply where rent control exists.
What the court decided
In Dant v. Mobile Home Rent Control Board of Chicopee, No. 24-P-857 (Mass. App. Ct. Aug. 15, 2025), the court affirmed in part and vacated in part.
First, the court rejected the idea that the Attorney General’s regulations do not apply in rent control communities. Those regulations, 940 Code Mass. Regs. § 10.00, apply to manufactured housing communities across the state. One of them, 940 Code Mass. Regs. § 10.03(2)(m), makes it an unfair or deceptive practice under G.L. c. 93A for an operator to seek to recover costs that result from a legal duty to upgrade or repair sewer, water, gas or electrical systems to meet minimum legal standards, subject to limited exceptions.
Second, the court read the board’s special enabling law and the regulation together and tried to harmonize them. Under the enabling law, rent is set to give the owner a fair return after all reasonable operating expenses. The yearly sewer usage charge is a classic operating expense, no different from paying for electricity or water. It does not result from the upgrade. It results from the need to provide sewer service at all. So that charge was properly included, and the court saw no conflict with the regulation.
Third, the betterment charge for the pumping station is different. It is a cost of the upgrade itself, and including it in the rent appears inconsistent with § 10.03(2)(m). If the statute and the regulation truly conflict, the statute wins. Veksler v. Board of Registration in Dentistry, 429 Mass. 650, 652 (1999). But the board never explained what counts as an operating expense or why this charge qualified, and it may have accepted the wrong view that the regulations did not apply. The court suggested that one-time capital charges likely are not operating expenses, while capital costs spread out over time may be. It vacated the judgment on the betterment charge and sent it back to the board to reconsider and explain, without suggesting an outcome.
What this means for you
If you own a manufactured home and rent a lot, the Attorney General’s regulations protect you whether or not your city has a rent control board. Under 940 Code Mass. Regs. § 10.03(2)(m), an operator generally may not seek to recover the cost of a legally required upgrade to sewer, water, gas or electrical systems, subject to limited exceptions. In a rent control community, the board’s own law still controls if the two truly conflict, which is the question this board must now answer. Separately, 940 Code Mass. Regs. § 10.03(2)(l) limits lump-sum charges for capital improvements, though amortized costs listed in your occupancy agreement may be recovered over time through community-wide rent increases.
The decision is also honest about limits. Ongoing utility costs, like monthly sewer use, can lawfully support a rent increase. And the court would not consider a new theory the residents raised for the first time at oral argument, because it was not part of the record before the board. Arguments must be raised early, in front of the board, to count on appeal.
What to do now
- Read any rent increase notice and identify each cost the operator says it is passing on.
- Ask whether a cost is an ongoing service charge or a one-time cost of an upgrade or repair.
- Check your occupancy agreement for any listed capital improvement charges.
- Put every objection in writing to the board before it decides, so it is part of the record.
- Note the deadline to seek court review of a board decision and act quickly.
If this is your situation, call Doubleday Law at (617) 575-2006 or tell us what happened. Housing Court deadlines are short.
