Landlord and tenant – Retaliation – Manufactured housing

Listen to this article

Where the commonwealth has alleged that the defendants, having purchased a manufactured housing community, increased monthly rent in violation of the Manufactured Housing Act, the defendants should be preliminarily enjoined from charging residents over $385 per month during the pendency of the action and from commencing or maintaining any summary process proceeding for a resident’s failure to pay rent in excess of $385.

“The Commonwealth filed suit against the Boavida Communities, LLC and others (together Defendants or Boavida) alleging that Boavida purchased Willow Terrace, a 73-lot manufactured housing community located in Taunton, and shortly thereafter increased monthly rent in violation of the Manufactured Housing Act, G.L. 140, §§32A-32S (MHA or the Act) and its governing regulations, 940 Code Mass. Regs. [CMR] §10.00, et seq. (Regulations).

“Now before me is the Commonwealth’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Motion). The Commonwealth seeks an order preventing Defendants from charging residents over $302 per month during the pendency of this action, and from commencing or maintaining any summary process proceeding for a tenant’s failure to pay $302 per month. …

“In my view, then, the propriety of the requested injunction turns on whether the Commonwealth has shown a likelihood of success that the June 2025 increased rent was retaliatory. I conclude it has. …

“Concluding that the presumption applies, I consider whether Defendants have rebutted it. They have not. …

“Defendants have not met that burden. Defendants have not shown that, absent the [Attorney General’s Office (AGO)]’s notice of violation, they would have increased rent to alleged fair market value — i.e., more than double the rent — mid-year. …

“The Commonwealth also has persuaded me that an injunction is in the public interest. …

“I do not agree, however, that preserving the status quo at $302 per month is appropriate. … The Defendants erred in failing to offer a five-year lease to tenants beginning at the first rent increase effective January 2023. I conclude that freezing the status quo at that rate for the five years that the Defendants were obligated to offer that rent is appropriate and balances the Defendants’ rights under the Act to eventually charge fair market rent. Nor do I conclude that it is appropriate to freeze the status quo for the length of the case where, under the Act, the Defendant could lawfully have increased rent as of January 2028. …

“For the foregoing reasons, the Commonwealth’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is allowed-in-part. Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successor, and assigns, are hereby enjoined from:

“1. Charging any Willow Terrace resident rent over $385 (three hundred and eightyfive dollars) per month until January 1, 2028, or entry of judgment or dismissal of this case, whichever occurs sooner; and

“2. Commencing or maintaining summary process proceedings against any Willow Terrace resident for failure to pay rent in excess of $385 (three hundred and eighty-five dollars) per month until January 1, 2028, or entry of judgment or dismissal of this case, whichever occurs sooner.”

Commonwealth v. The Boavida Group, LP, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-159-25) (9 pages) (Squires-Lee, J.) (Suffolk Superior Court) (Civil Action No. 2584CV02493-BLS2) (Nov. 18, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.