Landlord and tenant – Security deposit – Wear and tear

Listen to this article

Where plaintiff tenants have brought suit over a “move-out addendum” to their leases that has been found by the Supreme Judicial Court to violate G.L.c. 186, §15B(4), the defendants are entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiffs have failed to show that the defendants attempted to enforce the addendum.

“Branda Peebles and Joshua Berger (collectively ‘plaintiffs’) filed a complaint on behalf of themselves and a ll others similarly situated against JRK Property Holdings, Inc., Stevens Pond Apartments Property Owner, LLC and One Webster Apartments Property Owner, LLC (collectively ‘defendants’). Plaintiffs are both former residents of residential properties owned and managed by defendants.

“The complaint challenges an addendum to their leases (the ‘Move-Out Addendum’ or ‘the MOA’), which requires outgoing residents to have the apartment professionally cleaned and provides a list of charges that will be deducted from the tenant’s security deposit should they fail to do so. Plaintiffs allege that defendants wrongfully deducted charges for Plaintiffs reasonable wear and tear from their security deposits pursuant to the Move-Out Addendum in violation of M.G.L.c. 186, §15B, entitling them to recovery under that statute as well as under M.G.L.c. 93A, §9.

“In November, 2024, this Court certified two questions to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (‘SJC’):

“(1) When a tenant vacates a premises at the end of a lease, under what circumstances, if any, does charging him for painting, carpet repair or similar refurbishment constitute a deduction for ‘reasonable wear and tear’ in violation of M.G.L.c. 186, §15B(4)?

“(2) Does inclusion of a provision in a lease requiring a tenant to have the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the lease or to bear the costs of later repairs constitute a violation of M.G.L.c. 186, §15B(4)?

“In August, 2025, the SJC responded to the certified questions that (1) the MOA violated §15B(4) because it allowed for deductions from the security deposit for repairs regardless of whether the damage is reasonable wear and tear, and (2) reasonable wear and tear is a fact-specific inquiry without a brightline rule. …

“The motions for summary judgment, as briefed by the parties, turn on whether defendants enforced or attempted to enforce the MOA or otherwise attempted to obtain a waiver of plaintiffs’ rights such that defendants forfeited their right to retain any amount of the security deposit pursuant to M.G.L.c. 186, §15B(6)(c). …

“Plaintiffs contend that defendants attempted to enforce the MOA or obtain waiver by attaching the MOA to its standard form lease, requiring plaintiffs to execute both the lease and the MOA and making deductions to Peebles’ security deposit for touch- up paint and carpet cleaning. Defendants respond that the mere inclusion of the MOA in the lease does not constitute an attempt to enforce it and that the deductions to Peebles’ security deposit were for damage beyond reasonable wear and tear.

“The Court agrees with defendants. By its plain meaning and terms, the statute is conjunctive, i.e. the defendant must use and attempt to enforce the violating provision. If mere inclusion of the offending provision was sufficient, the second half of the statute would be superfluous. … The Court declines to adopt such an interpretation. If there is no evidence of enforcement, there is no evidence of a violation.

“Plaintiffs’ assertion that defendants enforced or attempted to enforce the MOA by making deductions from Peebles’ security deposit also fails because the record clearly shows that the deductions from Peebles’ deposit were for amounts less than the penalty provision in the MOA and explicitly differentiated between what was reasonable wear and tear and what wasn’t. Indeed, Peebles herself admitted that such charges were for damage beyond reasonable wear and tear and, as noted earlier, plaintiffs abandoned that claim on summary judgment.

“Plaintiffs have failed to show that defendants attempted to enforce the MOA and thus defendants have not forfeited their right to retain portions of the security deposit for otherwise lawful reasons. …

“For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 47) is allowed, and plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 52) and Motion for Class Certification (Docket No. 49) are denied.”

Peebles, et al. v. JRK Property Holdings, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-636-25) (7 pages) (Gorton, J.) (Civil Action No. 23-10523-NMG) (Nov. 25, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.