City of Worcester v. College Hill Properties, LLC, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-083-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC‑11166 CITY OF WORCESTER vs. COLLEGE HILL PROPERTIES, LLC, & another[1] (and four companion cases[2]). Worcester. January 7, 2013. ‑ May 15, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Lodging House. Contempt. Practice, Civil, Contempt. Words, “Lodgings.” Civil actions commenced in the Worcester Division of the Housing Court Department on January 13, 2010. The cases were heard by Timothy F. Sullivan, J., and complaints for contempt were also heard by him. After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review. Gary S. Brackett for the defendants. Ann S. Refolo, Assistant City Solicitor, for the plaintiff. Philip S. Lapatin & Nathaniel F. Hulme, for Greater Boston Real Estate Board, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. LENK, J. The defendants own two-family and three-family rental properties in Worcester. They leased dwelling units in these properties to groups of four unrelated adult college students. Each such dwelling unit contained a living room and dining room, kitchen, bathroom, and bedrooms. The inspectional services department of the city of Worcester (city) determined that, where such a dwelling unit is occupied by four or more unrelated adults, “not within the second degree of kindred” to each other, the dwelling unit is a “lodging” for purposes of G. L. c. 140, §§ 22-32 (lodging house act or act), and that each of the defendants was accordingly operating a lodging house without a license. See G. L. c. 140, § 24. This case presents the question whether such dwelling units as occupied constitute lodgings so as to render the subject properties lodging houses under the lodging house act. We conclude that the dwelling units are not lodgings and the properties are not lodging houses under the act. 1. Background. The essential facts are undisputed. The defendants own two‑family and three‑family rental properties in the city.[3] The properties contain dwelling units commonly referred to as apartments, consisting of a living room and dining room, a kitchen, a bathroom, and an unspecified number of bedrooms. Each apartment at issue here was leased to four local college students for a twelve‑month period. The students, all adults, were not related to each other or to the defendant lessors.[4] The students sharing an apartment each had access to the entire apartment and the use of all […]