Background
In July 2023, the rental housing industry in Massachusetts was presented with a shiny new law regarding rental assistance intended to assist residents (and housing providers) in non-payment of rent actions. Specifically, M.G.L c. 239 s.15 (the RAFT Statute) codified previous “emergency measures” implemented during COVID-19, which required certain delay(s) in non-payment of rent eviction actions where an application for rental assistance was pending. Unfortunately, the RAFT Statute contains several provisions that have been interpreted in drastically different ways by various judges, and this has resulted in a mishmash of decisions across the Commonwealth.
Most notably, section 15(b) of the RAFT Statute requires the trial court/judge to:
- Grant a continuance if: (1) a tenancy is being terminated solely for non-payment of rent; (2) the non-payment of rent was due to a financial hardship; and (3) the Defendant demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the court, a pending application for emergency rental assistance;
- Issue a stay of execution on a judgment for possession if the requirements in clauses 1-3 (above) are met; and
- Not enter a judgment or issue an execution before the application for emergency rental assistance has been approved or denied.
For the last few years, and until recently, many trial judges seemingly ignored section 15(a), which provides in relevant part: “emergency rental assistance” shall…mean…financial assistance provided to a residential tenant…to cure rent arrearage or provide financial assistance for moving cost assistance, including the payment of a security deposit." (emphasis added.)
The significance of the above highlighted section is oft overlooked, with few judges giving the requisite weight to the words “to cure.” While advocates for housing providers have been urging judges to allow their clients’ cases to proceed where an application is futile (i.e. the anticipated/available funds are far less than the amount(s) outstanding/due) and/or where a resident has been a repeat filer that may be gaming-the-system, only recently did the Appeals Court (albeit a single-justice opinion, and not a full-panel/binding precedent) provide some much needed guidance.
In PP Loop Investors LLC v. Carlota Castillo (No. 2026-J-0081), Justice Ditkoff held that a pending RAFT application does not entitle a resident to protection under the RAFT statute, M.G.L. c. 239 § 15(b)(2), unless it has a plausible likelihood of success. Where arrears exceeded RAFT limits and reinstatement required a repayment plan that the housing provider was not obligated to accept, the Court found the application futile and declined to issue a stay. Further, the Court noted that the judgment for possession and damages totaling over $11,000.00 had entered against the resident, which she never appealed. The only questions before the Appeals Court were whether the Housing Court erred in denying a stay and whether the statutory stay provision with regard to pending RAFT applications applied. Both questions were answered in the negative.
Industry impact
Housing providers should continue to work with their residents to fully and sincerely pursue rental assistance programs and funds that can resolve a non-payment eviction action that is attributable to a bona fide financial hardship. However, in cases where the assistance available (along with funds tendered by a resident) would not cure the balance, housing providers should not be constrained or otherwise delayed by the court in recovering possession of their property.
PP Loop Investors LLC v. Castillo Now Persuasive Authority On This Issue
Housing Providers throughout the country should herald and utilize decisions such as PP Loop Investors LLC v. Castillo in order to persuade their state’s judges to interpret laws in a meaningful manner that assists residents and their housing providers. The judicial branch can (and should) show compassion while also upholding an owner’s property rights.
Ted Papadopoulos, Member, AMPS Law P.C.