Posts tagged "1115614"

Karaa, et al. v. Yim, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-156-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   14-P-17                                         Appeals Court   SHOREH KARAA & another[1]  vs.  KUK YIM & others.[2] No. 14-P-17. Middlesex.     October 8, 2014. – December 5, 2014.   Present:  Kafker, Trainor, & Milkey, JJ. Real Property, Lease.  Contract, Performance and breach. Landlord and Tenant, Termination of lessee’s obligation, Rent, Security deposit, Consumer protection.  Damages, Mitigation, Attorney’s fees.  Consumer Protection Act, Landlord and tenant, Trade or commerce.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on September 30, 2011.   The case was heard by Kathe M. Tuttman, J.   Edward A. Broderick for the plaintiffs. Wei Jia, for the defendants, submitted a brief.      KAFKER, J.  The primary issue presented in this landlord-tenant case is the proper application of the security deposit provisions in G. L. c. 186, § 15B.  The residential property was owned by Shoreh Karaa and Fadi Karaa (collectively, the Karaas), and rented by China Real Estate Development Investment & Trust Fund Corporation (CREDIT), Kuk Yim, and Chiung Fong (collectively, the tenants).  After a bench trial, the Superior Court judge found that the tenants had breached their lease with the Karaas, and that the tenants’ obligations under the lease were not excused under the doctrine of frustration of purpose.  The judge also found that the Karaas were not liable for alleged violations of G. L. c. 186, § 15B, stemming from their mishandling of the tenants’ security deposit.  The judge further determined that the Karaas had not committed fraud or breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment, that they properly had mitigated their damages, and that they were not liable for alleged violations of G. L. c. 93A.  The trial judge did find, however, that the Karaas were liable under G. L. c. 186, § 15B(2)(a), for their failure to pay interest on the tenants’ last month’s rent.  On appeal, the tenants take issue with the trial judge’s holdings in favor of the Karaas.  We affirm. Background.  In March, 2010, the Karaas placed their home located at 83 Spring Valley Road in Belmont (property) up for rent at $ 4,500 per month through listings on the Internet site “Craigslist” and with a real estate agent.  On May 10, 2010, the tenants and the Karaas entered into a written lease agreement for the property at a reduced rent of $ 4,300 per month, with a starting date of June 16, 2010.  The lease was for one year and fifteen days.  The lessees […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - December 5, 2014 at 4:02 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , ,