On these facts, yes. In a January 2025 decision, the Appeals Court held that a no-fault notice to quit served within six months after a tenant filed a small claims case over housing conditions was presumed retaliatory, even though the tenant lost that case, and it upheld the tenants’ win on possession. This is an unpublished Appeals Court decision under Rule 23.0, which courts may cite as persuasive but not as binding precedent.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 rented an apartment in a three-family building in Fitchburg, first under a one-year lease and then as tenants at will. From the start, a window, the stair treads, the porch floor and the roof in the common areas were in disrepair. After an attempted break-in damaged the apartment’s entry door, the landlord patched it but did not replace it for more than thirty days, leaving it covered with plywood. The local board of health later cited the landlord for cross-metered gas and electricity and other conditions. In November 2022, one tenant filed a small claims case over the utilities and the conditions. The landlord won that case, and less than three months later served a no-fault notice to quit. The tenants were current on rent when the notice arrived. After trial, the Housing Court found the tenants owed rent but awarded them more on their counterclaims, so the tenants won possession and a small net balance.
What the court decided
In Pennetti v. Beauregard, No. 24-P-204 (Mass. App. Ct. January 24, 2025) (Rule 23.0 decision), the Appeals Court affirmed on every issue.
Retaliation. Under G.L. c. 186, § 18, a notice to quit (other than for nonpayment of rent) served within six months after a tenant has commenced, proceeded with, or obtained relief in a legal action to enforce housing laws is presumed to be retaliation. The landlord can rebut that presumption only with clear and convincing evidence. The court rejected the landlord’s arguments that the clock ran from the tenants’ earliest complaint and that a lost case did not count. Because the statute says “or,” starting a case is enough; winning is not required. The court distinguished Youghal, LLC v. Entwistle, 484 Mass. 1019 (2020), where the tenants owed rent, and South Boston Elderly Residences, Inc. v. Moynahan, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 455 (2017), where the notice was for nonpayment. The landlord’s argument that a small claims case is not protected activity was not properly briefed, so the court did not decide it, though it said the argument would fail.
Habitability and the right to raise defenses. Each common area defect, and the delayed door repair, violated the State sanitary code, so the judge properly found a breach of the warranty of habitability. Under G.L. c. 239, § 8A, a tenant can use bad conditions as a defense to eviction only if the landlord knew about them before the tenant fell behind on rent. Because the defects existed when the tenancy began, the landlord was presumed to know about them. See South Boston Elderly Residences, 91 Mass. App. Ct. at 463 n.6. The landlord admitted he knew about the door, and his reasons for the delay did not matter. See Berman & Sons, Inc. v. Jefferson, 379 Mass. 196 (1979). The tenants did not start withholding rent until after the landlord had notice.
Quiet enjoyment and Chapter 93A. The court also upheld the finding that the common area defects violated the covenant of quiet enjoyment, G.L. c. 186, § 14. And it agreed that leaving code violations uncorrected for about three years, and an insecure door for more than a month, was a willful or knowing unfair practice that justified double damages under G.L. c. 93A, § 9. A landlord does not need to know the law; knowing about the conditions is enough. See Montanez v. Bagg, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 954 (1987). The court also awarded the tenants their attorney’s fees for the appeal. See Yorke Mgt. v. Castro, 406 Mass. 17 (1989).
What this means for you
If you go to court to enforce your rights as a tenant, including in small claims, a no-fault notice to quit that arrives within six months is presumed to be retaliation. You do not have to win your earlier case.
Rent status matters. The presumption does not apply to a nonpayment notice, and these tenants were current on rent when the notice came. Conditions present at move-in are treated as known to the landlord. If you hold back rent, do it only after the landlord knows about the problems.
What to do now
- Write down the date you filed any complaint, inspection request or court case about your housing, and keep copies.
- Keep paying rent on time unless you have a lawful reason to withhold and the landlord already knows about the conditions.
- Photograph defects in your unit and in common areas such as stairs, porches and doors.
- If you receive a notice to quit within six months of a complaint or case, raise retaliation in your answer and counterclaims.
If this is your situation, call Doubleday Law at (617) 575-2006 or tell us what happened. Housing Court deadlines are short.
