Enormous Martha Coakley Fine Reversed

Over the last two years we watched several landlords get fined more than $10,000 each by former Attorney General Martha Coakley. Now one of these massive fines has been reversed. News of this comes from various sources who deserve credit, including Elmir Simov (blogger at MassachusettsLandlords.com) and Dawna Provost (editor of the Small Property Owners Association Newsletter).

We had saved the link to share with you, but it seems that the decision has been taken down from the Commonwealth's site. You can read a copy of it on Elmir's site here. Here's the gist of it:

A landlord advertised the honest truth that his apartment was not deleaded and not, in its present state, ready for children. Actually what he said is "cannot be rented to families with children under six years old."

A woman viewing the ad was offended and called the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD). Thereafter the Attorney General at the time, Martha Coakley, prosecuted the case successfully. The section 93A consumer protection law was invoked to triple the damages, and the attorney general's fees were added onto the judgment. All in all, the landlord had to pay $37,930. That would be a totally ruinous amount of money for the average landlord.

Fortunately in this case, this was not your average landlord. He was also an attorney. It took two years but at long last, on appeal, he proved that he had made only a "good faith mistake." Furthermore, he got the court to agree with him that the fines were "excessive."

The fines truly were excessive, especially when you consider that there was no actual harm done. The woman who called MCAD was not actually interested in the apartment. She had not attempted to rent it. She had no children under six. She hadn't actually been discriminated against at all. She just felt that someone needed to punish that landlord. And the overzealous attorney general agreed.

Are all landlords greedy and evil? Of course not. No moreso than any protected class in the Commonwealth. But isn't it human nature to group "different" people into categories and ascribe all the worst motivations to them? It seems that even Attorney Generals can be wrongfully discriminatory. If only landlords were a protected class!

It's fortunate the landlord won this case. It sets a precedent that 93A triple damages apply only when there are actual damages.

But this case is also a sobering reminder that you can be sued merely for what you write. It's even more sobering to think that these fines were reversed only because the landlord was an attorney willing to fight them for two years. Be careful with your ads.