Quiet Enjoyment Unreasonable Landlord Guest Policy?

[PhoenixAki]

Jurisdiction

Massachusetts

Intro: Hi, I'm renting a studio apartment in Massachusetts which is a room on the 2nd floor of my landlady's residential home (whose family including kids live on the 1st floor). The house entrance I use is only used by me and only very briefly enters a small common hallway (which they similarly only briefly walk through) before going upstairs to my room. I'm roughly halfway through my 1-year lease and have legality concern about multiple aspects of the lease, but this post is focusing on the one I need the most advice/input on. I am a first-time renter and was unaware of all my rights until recently, which is on me of course, but that is why it took until now (when describing the situation to friends/colleagues) that I realized I should educate myself and it's led to this fiasco unfolding now.

Problem: The lease states that I must ask permission from her before allowing any guests into the home. This felt invasive but I rolled with it since she was (until recently) reasonable about it and never denied any guest requests until earlier this month (which resulted in needing to re-arrange a full weekend of social plans I had in mind) and as mentioned, I was unaware of how this could be overstepping possibly. A few months in she also started demanding that I have my guests meet her briefly before entering my space, justifying it as "it is my home and I have kids here and I want to know who is entering it", denying it as a trust issue on me, and further saying it just helps her feel less anxious (which is not my problem when she chose to rent the room out, but I digress). I never formally agreed to that policy and it isn't in the lease, but I have rolled with it as well while I looked into the legality of this all.

My Research: I've attempted to get legal advice in person but none of the firms I reached out to have gotten back to me, so I'm hoping for help here as I've put off confronting her for a few weeks now in hopes of input from someone first. I more recently started my own research at a public law library to see if I could find any case law decisions to support me, both for reference when talking to her if needed, and in the event I am in the right and need to threaten legal action over it. I found numerous relevant case decisions that hold firm on a tenant's right to admit whomever they want to their space, and even that a guest can't be considered trespassing in the absence of any formal agreement barring that guest, so long as they're not doing illegal things or disturbing the peace (which my guests aren't, and I've given no reason to suspect that). I'm very confident that the "guests must meet her" policy is unenforceable legally (especially as it's not in the lease), and a bit less confident but still fairly confident that the "must ask permission first" policy infringes on my right to quiet enjoyment of my rented space. It has directly resulted in me being very anxious whenever I need to text her about guests and I have held back on inviting people over as often as I want because of it. At risk of irrelevant subjective input, I'd compare the tone of guest-related texts is equivalent to having a second mom trying to control my guest-related actions.

Question: Am I correct that the right to quiet enjoyment extends to a tenant's right to admit guests to their rented space? I want to confront her on this ASAP but would like this validated first so that if I have to resort to threatening legal action, I can do so with more confidence that I'm in the right. This doesn't even touch upon some other things she's 100% in the wrong on that I could go after her for in a legal context if needed, I'm just focusing on this part primarily. I can gladly provide more detail on specifics aspects (including specific lease wording) as needed, I just didn't want to make this post any longer than it already is when that might not be necessary

 

[army judge]

Am I correct that the right to quiet enjoyment extends to a tenant's right to admit guests to their rented space?

Question: Am I correct that the right to quiet enjoyment extends to a tenant's right to admit guests to their rented space?

Take your time perusing, digesting, cogitating, and considering the following passages.

What should become apparent to you is that your premise noted above is faulty.

The next thing you might wish to do is read your lease.

No one FORCED you to sign it.

You agreed to it voluntarily.

Your option is to honor your commitment and terminate the lease, if it's provisions concern, vex, or worry you.

What is a Breach of Quiet Enjoyment Claim in Massachusetts?

Tenants in Massachusetts have a right to use and enjoy the premises which they rent or lease. When a landlord does something either willfully or by omission that interferes with the tenant's ability to use and enjoy their apartment, the tenant is in violation of the tenant's right to use and enjoy the premises.

What are the Results of a Landlord's Breach of Quiet Enjoyment?

Common Causes for a Breach of Quiet Enjoyment Claim

1. Flooding due to inadequate repairs
2. Inadequate heating of the apartment
3. Conversion of private space into common space
4. Miscalculating rent or eviction for nonpayment causing emotional distress
5. Fire alarms that run for over 24 hours
6. Excessive noise from tenants
7. Failing or refusing to repair a heating system
8. Self-Help – or the landlord locks the tenant out for failure to pay rent without a court order to do so

Damages for Breach of Quiet Enjoyment in Massachusetts

Massachusetts landlords should expect damage awards of either 3 month's rent or the actual monetary loss to a tenant (whichever is larger) minus any rent owed. Such damages awarded to the tenant may include, warranty damages, property damage (belonging within the apartment), or eating out during times where access to the apartment was limited.

Then there is the matter of lawyer's fees, court costs and other costs which the landlord can be ordered to pay if the tenant wins the case.

 

[PhoenixAki]

No one FORCED you to sign it.

You agreed to it voluntarily.

I'm fully aware of that and did intend to claim otherwise. My mention of being unaware of my rights early on was purely explaining that is why there was a delay in noticing the concerns I stated. I have been under the belief that if a lease provision goes against rights a tenant is legally entitled to, it would be unenforceable or void, which if true would imply that it being signed would be irrelevant since the law aspect would override it. If that's not true, then that might answer my question at a much higher level of the discussion. Regardless, that would only matter if the right to admit guests is legally guaranteed or not.

I recognize the provision in itself (to need to ask permission) likely is legal, but it's the implementation of it that my argument is focused on. For 1 example, the provision does not specify any sort of limit on number guests at a time (outside of sanitary code rules on the space being overcrowded). It only states that I must ask permission first. I don't know for sure whether that vagueness would work in my favor ("it doesn't say I can't have x number of people over" logic) or in her favor ("it doesn't specify, so she can decide rules on the fly" logic), but I have seen a case decision that referred to ruling in favor of the tenant when there is doubt in the implementation of a policy that relates to the use of a premises. Alongside the other cases I referred to which similarly are consistent on a tenant's right to admit guests, including specifically saying they can do so notwithstanding objections from a landlord. Even if I'm wrong on these conclusions, I hope you can at least see how I got to these conclusions.

The parts you posted after are things I have seen many times in my research and do not help me feel confident that it would not be included possibly. In my view, "When a landlord does something either willfully or by omission that interferes with the tenant's ability to use and enjoy their apartment" could absolutely include such a situation if my above logic does hold water, especially since the list of example scenarios of breach of quiet enjoyment surely isn't exhaustive.

I'm obviously not a lawyer (else I wouldn't be here), and I'm trying to not fall victim to confirmation bias, I've just seen enough that seems to be in my favor here that I went into this much detail and including this reply so that, if I am wrong, I can know exactly where my logic is flawed so I can make sure I'm taking the right lessons away from this.

Ironically enough, one of the other issues I have that I alluded to does actually have to do with inadequate heating of the apartment, but that's a separate issue I'm significantly more confident I'm in the right on (based on sanitary code, but based on it being mentioned here, I guess it could be considered a quiet enjoyment issue as well).

 

[adjusterjack]

She has an absolute right to know who is entering her home. And since she isn't denying you your guests, you have no legal recourse against the requirement.

I review of the MA landlord tenant statutes reveals no prohibition of that requirement.

Now, if you want an opinion to the contrary, based on case decisions that you have read, then I suggest that you cite those cases so that experienced readers can read them and see if you are properly interpreting them.

 

[PhoenixAki]

Now, if you want an opinion to the contrary, based on case decisions that you have read, then I suggest that you cite those cases so that experienced readers can read them and see if you are properly interpreting them.

I plan to return to a law library tomorrow to do a bit more digging since I was in somewhat of a rush on my first trip, though I'm not sure if I'll find much else. If nothing else it will get me a chance to read things in more full context. Once I do that I can definitely come back and cite things more properly, if I don't determine on my own that I was interpreting things wrong in the meantime.

And since she isn't denying you your guests, you have no legal recourse against the requirement.

She did deny on one instance at the start of this month which caught me very off-guard (original post mentions it), and it was that which triggered me to look into whether she was able to do so, leading to this rabbit hole I've now gotten myself into Not sure that it matters much considering the rest of your message context, I just wanted to clarify that just in case.

 

[adjusterjack]

I plan to return to a law library tomorrow

You might save yourself a trip by using Google Scholar. Here's the page for MA.

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

You put in a topic and the related cases come up. Or put in a case name if you already know it.

Once you have case names that you rely on, I can look them up.

She did deny on one instance at the start of this month which caught me very off-guard (original post mentions it),

I see that. What were the circumstances? Did she give a reason?

 

[zddoodah]

I confess that I didn't read though the entirety of your two VERY long posts (which I suspect are much longer than need be given that your only question requires very little background info).

Am I correct that the right to quiet enjoyment extends to a tenant's right to admit guests to their rented space?

No.