Landlord and tenant – Abuse of process

Listen to this article

Where a Housing Court order dismissing a plaintiff landlord’s summary process complaint barred the defendant tenant from bringing a future action against the landlord for abuse of process, treating the dismissal of the landlord’s complaint to bar a future abuse of process claim by the tenant was unwarranted, so the order must be vacated in part.

“The defendant in this summary process action, Jennifer Melendez (tenant), appeals from orders entered in the Housing Court barring her from bringing a future action against the plaintiff, Chelmsford Woods Residences II, LP (landlord), for abuse of process. Concluding that the language barring the tenant from bringing a future claim was erroneous, we vacate so much of the orders dated October 21, 2024, and October 29, 2024, that impose such a bar. …

“After substantial procedural wrangling which we need not describe here, and after the landlord made several attempts to voluntarily dismiss the action, the parties appeared in the Housing Court on August 21, 2024, to discuss the parameters of a dismissal. The judge summarized what he believed to be the parties’ mutual agreement: ‘That the whole case will be dismissed with prejudice, and that would include any claims arising out of the handling of the case itself.’ Counsel for the tenant, however, raised concerns about the scope of the order of dismissal. While the tenant would have been content with an order stating that ‘all claims raised in the notice to quit and based on the terms of the agreement for judgment will be dismissed with prejudice,’ she objected to phrasing proposed by landlord’s counsel to the effect that the dismissal would include ‘any and all claims, or potential claims, by both parties … relating to or concerning this action.’ The judge asked the parties to submit proposed orders of dismissal.

“The landlord’s proposed order included language similar to its proposal at the hearing, encompassing potential or actual claims brought by either party: ‘Any and all claims or issues related to or concerning this Action that were raised or could have been raised are waived and/or dismissed with prejudice.’ The tenant’s proposed order limited dismissal to claims actually asserted by the landlord: ‘Any and all trial claims as raised by the Plaintiff as of this date are void and dismissed with prejudice.’ The judge adopted and signed the tenant’s proposed order of dismissal. …

“We agree with the tenant that the order treating the dismissal of the landlord’s complaint to bar a future abuse of process claim by the tenant was unwarranted. As an initial matter, the order did not reflect the agreement of the parties. To the contrary, both at the August 21 hearing and in her proposed order, the tenant objected to the dismissal of any claims or counterclaims she could have brought. The judge himself stated it would be ‘inappropriate’ to dismiss such claims with prejudice. While we understand the judge’s desire for the parties to put this contentious summary process action behind them, we see no basis to order preclusion of a claim that has not yet been asserted. …

“It is impossible at this juncture to determine whether the tenant had the opportunity or incentive to raise her abuse of process claim in the summary process action. … Resolving an abuse of process claim requires a careful assessment of the facts, including elusive issues such as motive and intent. … The tenant did not assert an abuse of process counterclaim when the landlord first brought the action, and she has not yet asserted such a claim. From the record before us, it is unclear which of the landlord’s actions the tenant would allege amounted to an abuse of process — the tenant has at times objected to the identity of the landlord and to the landlord’s conduct throughout the course of litigation, including proceedings in the single justice session of this court. With no abuse of process claim before us, we express no opinion on the validity of any abuse of process claim that the tenant might assert, or on whether the tenant had the opportunity and incentive to raise that claim during the summary process proceedings. Those questions can be addressed when and if the tenant files such a claim. But they should not have been foreclosed before they were brought. …

“We vacate those portions of the orders dated October 21, 2024, and October 29, 2024, that bar the tenant from bringing a future abuse of process claim arising out of this matter. The order of dismissal dated October 21, 2024, and entered on October 22, 2024, is in all other respects affirmed.”

Chelmsford Woods Residences II, LP v. Melendez (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-161-25) (6 pages) (Docket No. 25-P-167) (Dec. 9, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.