Condominium Insider
MEEB’s Condo Law Newsletter
HOW TO DEAL WITH A ‘BAD’ CONDOMINIUM TENANT - CONTACT THE OWNER
If a condominium owner regularly plays loud music, rolls golf balls across an uncarpeted floor, otherwise disturbs other residents or violates association rules, the board’s response is clear: Notify the owner that he or she is violating the rules and fine him/her if the violations continue. But what if the annoying resident is a tenant, not an owner?
The response isn’t quite as straightforward. The board has no direct relationship with the tenant, no authority to enforce the association’s rules against him, and certainly no authority to evict him, unless the governing documents specifically grant that authority, which most do not. The board’s relationship is with the owner of the unit, who is the tenant’s landlord, so any actions the board takes should start there.
EARLY LEASE TERMINATION
A tenant claims that her live-in boyfriend assaulted her and says she can’t continue to live with him. Both she and her boyfriend are on the lease and jointly responsible for paying the rent. While I sympathize with this woman, I’ve told her that if she moves, both tenants remain responsible for the full monthly rent. She says I must allow her to break her lease without penalty. Is that true?
RISKS VS. REVENUE
To rent or not to rent association amenities to non-owners. That is a question boards often ponder as they eye opportunities to increase their revenue. But third party rentals also entail risks that boards must recognize and weigh against the potential benefits.
Liability is the most obvious risk but it isn’t first on the list. That distinction goes to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). By renting space to third parties, a community association might be classified as a “place of public accommodation” subject to the ADA and thus required to make common areas and amenities accessible to individuals with disabilities.
WHAT LEASES SAY IS IMPORTANT - WHAT THEY DON’T SAY CAN BE PROBLEMATIC
It has been said so often it is trite but nonetheless true: An oral contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Also true but not said nearly often enough: A written lease isn’t worth much either if it doesn’t contain the language needed to protect the landlord.
LANDLORDS CAN’T REQUIRE APARTMENTTENANTS TO PAY THE BROKER’S FEE
Landlords have traditionally required tenants to pay the broker’s fee when they rent an apartment, and tenants have generally expected to incur that expense. But this standard practice in the rental housing industry is now illegal in Massachusetts as the result of an amendment to the state law governing the registration of real estate brokers and salespeople. That amendment, which took effect August 1, prohibits landlords from requiring tenants to pay the fee for the landlord’s broker.
Although this is being characterized as significant change, we have argued for a long time that requiring tenants to pay the broker’s fee violated the Massachusetts Security Deposit Law (M.G.L. c. 186 § 15B), which allows landlords to charge tenants in advance for only four items: The first month’s rent, the last month’s rent, a security deposit and the cost of changing the locks on the apartment. The amendment explicitly makes improperly charging a broker’s fee a violation of the Massachusetts Security Deposit Law. This doesn’t really change the existing law, but it will change industry practice by ensuring that landlords comply with the limits the law imposes on what they can require tenants to pay in advance.