Maguire v. Boston Rent Equity Bd.

• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts
• Citation: Maguire v. Boston Rent Equity Bd., 518 N.E.2d 882, 25 Mass.App.Ct. 951 (Mass. App. 1988)
• Decision Date: 08 February 1988
• Docket Number: No. 87-509,87-509
• Parties: Joseph MAGUIRE et al. 1 v. BOSTON RENT EQUITY BOARD et al. 2

Page 882

518 N.E.2d 882

25 Mass.App.Ct. 951

Joseph MAGUIRE et al. ¹ v. BOSTON RENT EQUITY BOARD et al. ²

No. 87-509.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts Suffolk.

Argued Jan. 19, 1988.

Decided Feb. 8, 1988.

Patrick M. Finn, Boston (James D. Rose, East Boston, with him), for Boston Rent Equity Bd.

Herbert S. Lerman, Brookline, for plaintiffs.

Before GRANT, CUTTER and ARMSTRONG, JJ.

RESCRIPT.

The plaintiffs, immediately upon their purchase of the vacancy decontrolled housing accommodation in question, demanded of the tenant a twenty-six percent increase in the monthly rent which was intended to take effect on a date which was less than twelve months from the effective date of an earlier increase which the previous landlord had demanded and received from the same tenant. The tenant met the plaintiffs' demand but filed a rent grievance petition with the Boston rent equity board (board), which, after hearing, invalidated the plaintiffs' demand and ordered them to refund all amounts collected by them in excess of the monthly rent the tenant had been paying the previous landlord immediately prior to the plaintiffs' purchase of the accommodation. The Boston Housing Court, in de novo proceedings, annulled the decision and order of the board and directed it to enter a new decision which would give effect to the rent increase demanded by the plaintiffs. The board and the tenant appealed. ³ The plaintiffs took a cross-appeal, alleging procedural errors in the board's processing of the tenant's petition. They failed to enter their appeal in this court, but we consider by way of dictum the questions they have argued because the views of the panel may be of interest to others. Compare Wellesley College v. Attorney Gen., 313 Mass. 722, 731, 49 N.E.2d 220 (1943). 1. The substantive question for decision is the proper interpretation of Boston Ord. 1984, c. 34 ("Regulating Certain Residential Rents, Evictions, and Conversions"), § 6 ("Rent Grievances"), and those of § 16 ("Limited Rent Increases") of the board's 1984 vacancy decontrol rent grievance regulations. ⁴ Although the ordinance and the regulation are inartfully drawn in terms of a prohibition of a landlord's "receiving" or "demanding" more than one rent increase in any one twelve-month period, we think it too clear for argument that the only reasonable construction of the ordinance and the regulation (see H.N. Gorin & Leeder Management Co. v. Rent Control Bd. of Cambridge, 18 Mass.App.Ct. 272, 276, 464 N.E.2d 1370 [1984] ) is that no tenant shall be obliged to suffer more than one increase a year in the rent for the same decontrolled housing accommodation so long as the ordinance remains in effect. See Ord. 1984, c. 34, § 17. Any other construction would nullify one of the stated purposes of § 6 of the ordinance, to "prevent rent gouging" in decontrolled accommodations, and leave a tenant at the mercy of as many different landlords as might succeed to the title to such an accommodation in the course of a year. 2. There is no merit to any of the plaintiffs' procedural contentions. (a) The pro se tenant's original rent grievance petition was filed with the board within the forty-five day period found in § 6 of the ordinance and § 4 B 1 of the regulations. What happened between the date of filing that petition and the date of filing the tenant's second substitute petition was nothing more than what is expressly contemplated by § 6 ("Acceptance by the Board of a Vacancy Decontrolled Grievance Petition [Form G-1] " ) A ("Completeness") of the regulations. The board, in formulating its regulations, had the options of (i) retaining a timely petition which did not contain all the required information and calling on the tenant for further information and (ii) administratively dismissing an incomplete petition...