It took ten years of hard work by Richard Brooks and CAI and the Framingham Condominium Coalition to convince The Town of Framingham to provide free trash pickup to condominiums in 2002.

Earlier this year the City of Framingham wanted to take it away.

However, on August 18th, the city reversed its position and decided it wouldn’t change the service for fiscal 2027 and condominiums would continue to receive trash pickup from the city.

Thanks to the hard work of some condominium board members and concerned unit owners, who flooded the city with letter and phone calls, FAIRNESS and EQUITY prevailed.

MEEB was involved in the ten year fight that resulted in trash pickup in 2002 and once again, MEEB worked pro bono on this issue to help restore trash pickup in Framingham.

Amazon, Walmart and other retailers have said they will be relying increasingly on drones to deliver packages to consumers. Our board has many concerns about this plan, primary among them the damage falling packages (and falling drones) might do to property and residents, complaints about the noise drones will make, and ‘invasion of privacy’ complaints from residents who think the drones are spying on them. We’d like to avoid those problems if possible. Can the board prohibit drone deliveries in our community?

Are community associations required to protect residents from the criminal acts of third parties? This question usually arises after press reports of a crime committed in a condominium community for which the association is being sued. Until fairly recently, the generally accepted answer was – no.  While boards might be required in some circumstances to address the criminal acts, or potential criminal acts of residents – for example, when one resident threatens to harm others – they had no obligation to protect residents from burglaries, assaults, rapes or other crimes committed by third parties who had no relationship with the association.

Last March, we were delighted to announce, and our clients were delighted to hear, that  “CTA Reporting is Dead to Us,” after the Treasury Department decided that only foreign companies would be required to file the beneficial ownership information required by the Corporate Transparency Act. Preliminary rules had required all U.S business entities, including community associations and board members, to file the CTA reports.

We have more good news to report now.  The interim CTA exemptions announced last year have been made permanent, pending publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.  No more reporting personal information for board members and no more fear mongering from firms charging a fortune for filing those CTA reports!   

An owner who doesn’t smoke is fighting with a neighbor who does. The non-smoking owner says the second hand smoke seeping into his unit is a health hazard and has threatened to sue the board if we don’t “do something about it.” The smoking owner says he has a right to smoke in his unit and has threatened to sue if we do anything to interfere with that right. What should the board do?

Cyber fraud targeting condos and property management companies is no longer theoretical, it’s the stark reality of today’s world of electronic communications. A recent incident involving a management company illustrates how quickly a seemingly ordinary transaction can become a financial nightmare, and how easily liability disputes can follow.

Ask board members about their property insurance coverage and you’ll probably get a knowing if somewhat pained look. Questions about fidelity insurance, on the other hand, are more likely to produce a blank stare, because many board members either don’t know what it is or assume they don’t need it. Fidelity insurance covers losses resulting from theft, fraud or other criminal acts. Fortunately, these losses for condominium associations are relatively rare – but they aren’t unknown. The recent collapse of a large Massachusetts condominium management company accused of stealing several million dollars from the more than 200 associations it managed provides a recent case in point, illustrating why all condo associations need this essential insurance coverage.

There are many things that make attorneys cringe, but there is one phrase that makes them want to pull the covers over their heads:  “After I signed the contract….”  That’s like saying, “After I jumped in the pond, I realized it was infested with snakes.”  There’s not much an attorney can do for you at that point, except call an ambulance or an undertaker. 

Poorly drafted contracts, unlike snake bites, aren’t going to be fatal for a condominium  association, but they may contain conditions that could be expensive and harmful.  That’s why the association’s attorney should always review contracts before you sign them.  (You knew I was going to say that!) It is also why I’m going to concentrate here on the provisions boards either want to include or want to avoid in construction contracts and contracts with their vendors. 

Marcus Errico Emmer & Brooks, P.C. is pleased to announce the recovery of nearly $600,000 on behalf of a small South Shore condominium association in a construction defect and water damage dispute against its developer. The association had long been burdened by serious construction defects and resulting water damage that the developer had failed to adequately address. Nearly three years ago, the association presented the developer with a pre-suit demand of $300,000 — a figure the developer declined to meaningfully engage with at the time. Unwilling to leave the association without recourse, litigation partner Seth Barnett filed suit to protect the association's interests and hold the developer accountable.

On May 22, 2026, HUD issued a memorandum titled “Enforcement Guidance – Assessing Requests for the Use of an Animal as a Reasonable Accommodation Under the Fair Housing Act.” The memorandum states that, “effective immediately,” HUD requires a reasonable accommodation only for animals trained to provide disability-related assistance. HUD explained that “an entire industry has emerged to convert pets into emotional support animals” and stated that it had not intended its earlier, broader guidance to be treated by courts as requiring the allowance of emotional support animals.