MML Corp. v. Couture

• Citation: 999 N.E.2d 502 (Table),84 Mass.App.Ct. 1125
• Decision Date: 13 December 2013
• Docket Number: No. 13–P–223.,13–P–223.
• Parties: MML CORPORATION v. Roger COUTURE & another.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

84 Mass.App.Ct. 1125
999 N.E.2d 502 (Table)

MML CORPORATION
v.
Roger COUTURE & another.¹

No. 13–P–223.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts.

December 13, 2013.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

MML Corporation (MML) initiated this summary process action against Roger and Elizabeth Couture (Coutures or tenants) claiming multiple violations of the parties' long-term lease agreement. After a bench trial, a judge of the Northeast Housing Court found substantial and material breaches of paragraphs 11 (repair policy), 18 (lock policy) and 24 (payment of utilities) of the lease, and awarded possession to MML. The Coutures maintain there was no breach of the lease, and that if there was a breach, it was either waived, excused, or in contravention of an unenforceable lease provision. We affirm.

Discussion. We accept the judge's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. See Mass.R.Civ.P. 52(a), as amended, 423 Mass. 1402 (1996). In particular, we respect the judge's assessment of witness credibility and examine the legal standard applied by the judge to the facts. See Andover Hous. Authy. v. Shkolnik, 443 Mass. 300, 306 (2005) ; Boston Hous. Authy. v. Bridgewaters, 69 Mass.App.Ct. 757, 762 (2007), S. C., 452 Mass. 833 (2009) (reversing on other grounds). 1. Breach. a. Repair policy. The Coutures contend that the judge's finding that they breached the repair policy of the lease was not supported by the evidence. The lease obligated the Coutures to manage and care for the entire property over the course of the twenty-five year tenancy. The lease provided that “[u]nder no circumstances ” would MML be responsible for the expenses of any repairs or improvements unless it consented to such responsibility in advance and in writing. The judge found that on numerous occasions the Coutures refused to pay repair bills in contravention of the repair policy and that as a result of these breaches MML incurred significant expenses. See DiBella v. Fiumara, 63 Mass.App.Ct. 640, 646–648 (2005). The judge's finding that the Coutures breached the lease's repair policy and that this breach was material was supported by evidence and not clearly erroneous. See ibid.

The Coutures further claim that if there was a breach of the repair policy it was not intentional and was the result of a mistaken belief that the lease had been terminated, a belief induced by the actions of Margaret Lopez, president and treasurer of MML, who testified that she mistakenly assumed that the lease had been terminated as a result of the defendants' breaches. Whether viewed as a claim of mutual mistake or detrimental reliance, the claim is unavailing because the judge found no such mistake was made. Roger Couture testified that he considered the lease to be valid at all relevant times, and the judge did not credit the testimony that the Coutures' breaches were the result of mistake.

b. Lock policy. The tenants challenge the judge's conclusion that they had breached the lock policy provision of the lease on the basis that there was insufficient evidence of the breach, and that if there was any breach, it was immaterial. Lopez testified...