Filings Week Ending 2021 March 20

Residential summary process: Filings Report This report examines cases filed recently before reading, for which outcomes were largely unknown. Search Period Start: 2021-03-14 Search Period End: 2021-03-20 Earliest Case: 2021-03-15 Latest Case: 2021-03-20 Total Cases: 528 Total Transfers: 14 -- High-level take-aways: Percentage of landlords for whom attorney is optional: 25.0% Of those, percentage pro se: 38.6% Most common cause: Non-payment Least stable municipality/neighborhood: Hardwick Least stable with 10+ filings: New Bedford Least stable with 100+ filings: (not given) Least stable county: Barnstable Cases per day: 88 Housing crisis baseline max cases per day (UCL): 130 Housing crisis baseline min cases per day (LCL): 44 The number of filings this period is not statistically different from the pre-pandemic housing crisis baseline. -- Courts (n) Count Percent eastern 153 29.0% northeast 84 15.9% central 71 13.4% southeast 60 11.4% western 49 9.3% metro_south 47 8.9% waltham district 10 1.9% somerville district 9 1.7% quincy district 8 1.5% fall river district 5 0.9% bmc east boston 3 0.6% cambridge district 3 0.6% malden district 3 0.6% orleans district 3 0.6% barnstable district 2 0.4% nantucket district 2 0.4% wareham district 2 0.4% woburn district 2 0.4% attleboro district 1 0.2% bmc brighton 1 0.2% edgartown district 1 0.2% fallmouth district 1 0.2% framingham district 1 0.2% lynn district 1 0.2% northern berkshire district 1 0.2% orange district 1 0.2% pittsfield district 1 0.2% stoughton district 1 0.2% taunton district 1 0.2% westfield district 1 0.2% Party Type (n) Plaintiffs Defendants Corporate Entity 396 3 Natural Person 132 525 Total 528 528 (%) Plaintiffs Defendants Corporate Entity 75.0% 0.6% Natural Person 25.0% 99.4% Total 100.0% 100.0% Plaintiff Representation (n) Has Attorney Pro Se Total Required 390 6 396 Optional 81 51 132 Total 471 57 528 (%) Has Attorney Pro Se Total Required 73.9% 1.1% 75.0% Optional 15.3% 9.7% 25.0% Total 89.2% 10.8% 100.0% Defendant Representation Important: Defendants will not have an attorney known to the plaintiff at time of filing unless this is an ongoing matter. 100% pro se is to be expected in all filing reports except to the extent time passes between filing and staff review. See outcomes report for final assessment. (n) Has Attorney Pro Se Total Required 0 3 3 Optional 12 513 525 Total 12 516 528 (%) Has Attorney Pro Se Total Required 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% Optional 2.3% 97.2% 99.4% Total 2.3% 97.7% 100.0% Number of Adults in Households Count Percent 0 19 3.6% 1 417 79.0% 2 71 13.4% 3 16 3.0% 4 2 0.4% 5 1 0.2% 9 1 0.2% 10 1 0.2% Total 528 100.0% Note: Households may appear with zero adults due to clerical delay entering known defendants, identity protection obscuring known defendants (e.g., 42 USC Sections 13701 through 1404 Violence Against Women Act), or no adult defendants (e.g., abandonment of minors). Initiating Action Count Percent Non-payment 364 68.9% Cause 68 12.9% No Fault 63 11.9% Unknown/Other 32 6.1% Foreclosure 1 0.2% Rate per 100,000 Municipality Residents Count Hardwick 167 5 Gilbertville 86 1 Halifax 79 6 Chatham 32 2 Dennis Port 31 1 Cheshire 30 1 West Brookfield 27 1 Athol 25 3 Ashland 24 4 Edgartown 24 1 Norwood 24 7 Avon 22 1 Mashpee 21 3 Nantucket 19 2 Winchendon 19 2 Yarmouth Port 19 1 New Bedford 18 18 East Falmouth 17 1 Webster 17 3 Fall River 16 15 Waltham 16 10 Bourne 15 3 Norton 15 3 Clinton 14 2 Cohasset 13 1 Quincy 13 12 Abington 12 2 Brockton 12 12 Natick 12 4 Northbridge 12 2 Westport 12 2 Worcester 12 23 Blackstone 11 1 Sharon 11 2 Somerville 11 9 Weymouth 11 6 Sturbridge 10 1 Gardner 9 2 Holbrook 9 1 Leicester 9 1 Stoneham 9 2 Braintree 8 3 Spencer 8 1 Holliston 7 1 Hyannis 7 1 Marlborough 7 3 Stoughton 7 2 Brighton 6 3 Westwood 6 1 Foxborough 5 1 Framingham 5 4 Malden 5 3 Rockland 5 1 Scituate 5 1 Southbridge 5 1 Sudbury 5 1 Taunton 5 3 Winthrop 5 1 Canton 4 1 Easton 4 1 Fitchburg 4 2 Leominster 4 2 Sandwich 4 1 Allston 3 1 Cambridge 3 4 Danvers 3 1 Franklin 3 1 Marshfield 3 1 Milton 3 1 North Andover 3 1 North Attleborough 3 1 Peabody 3 2 Randolph 3 1 Revere 3 2 Wellesley 3 1 West Roxbury 3 1 Attleborough 2 1 Dartmouth 2 1 Dorchester 2 2 E. Boston 2 1 Pittsfield 2 1 Shrewsbury 2 1 Westfield 2 1 Woburn 2 1 East Weymouth 1 1 Lynn 1 1 Plymouth 1 1 Roxbury 1 1 (not given) 0 277 span 0 3 Rate per 100,000 residents based on 2010 census. Municipalities do not appear if no evictions filed. Where neighborhoods are commonly recognized as municipalities, data appears under the neighborhood rather than the legal entity (e.g., "Roxbury" is separate from "Boston".) Where municipalities have alternate spellings (e.g., Marlboro for Marlborough), totals appear under the long form. Efforts are made to correct clerical errors in the court database, but clerical errors may appear. Rate per 100,000 County Renter Households Count Barnstable 67 13 Nantucket 56 2 Plymouth 55 24 Bristol 54 45 Norfolk 50 43 Worcester 48 54 Dukes 24 1 Middlesex 19 46 Berkshire 12 2 Suffolk 6 12 Essex 4 5 Hampden 1 1 Franklin 0 0 Hampshire 0 0 Rate per 100,000 renter households based on 2019 ACS. Counties appear even if no evictions filed. -- Data Sources (report errors to hello@masslandlords.net): County Data Households Percent Renters Barnstable 96,509 20.0% Berkshire 53,792 30.0% Bristol 220,528 37.3% Dukes 18,146 22.6% Essex 297,898 36.9% Franklin 30,927 34.1% Hampden 179,970 39.5% Hampshire 60,002 30.7% Middlesex 612,366 38.1% Nantucket 11,399 30.8% Norfolk 269,717 31.6% Plymouth 191,041 22.6% Suffolk 309,945 63.7% Worcester 316,162 35.2% County Households: 2019 ACS TableID S1101 County Households and Renters, Dukes and Nantucket: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/dukescountymassachusetts County Households and Renters, Large Counties: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=S11&g=0400000US25.050000&d=ACS%201-Year%20Estimates%20Subject%20Tables&tid=ACSST1Y2019.S1101&hidePreview=true Dukes County Renters: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/dukescountymassachusetts Nantucket County Renters: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/nantucketcountymassachusetts -- Methodology Publicly available records at MassCourts.org are read fully manually at two intervals: 1.) For a filings report, once within approximately one week of filing; 2.) For an outcomes report, once again approximately 12 to 18 months after filing. Cases are searched by 'case type' = 'summary process', party type = 'plaintiff' within date ranges, typically weekly. MassCourts.org displays matches, not cases. X plaintiffs on a single case result in X separate matches. Cases are manually de-duplicated. Where the number of matches exceeds the number displayed (e.g., 'Displaying 100 of 257 total matches.'), date ranges are reduced until all cases may be viewed. If the date range cannot be reduced (i.e., is one day) but matches still exceed the display limit of 100, then two additional passes are taken. First, municipalities are filtered in stages. Second, to capture cases with no municipality entered, the search switches from 'case type' to 'case number', guessing the missing numbers assuming serialized entry. This method results in 'matches' reconciled to case counts. This effort costs more than 1 FTE. Summary spreadsheets are produced by copying exactly what is read. The spreadsheets are processed using proprietary software. Repeated analyses of local spreadsheets does not burden the MassCourts servers. The software is developed using best practices for revision control and regression testing. Limitations: Data are snapshots. As such, we cannot track individual cases over time or produce real-time reports. MassLandlords does not have access to court databases beyond what is published in human readable form at MassCourts.org. As of this report, MassLandlords staff were not considering information available to attorneys (e.g., the contents of notices, discovery, evidence, etc.) but not available to the general public. All data presented here are readily verifiable at MassCourts.org without special permission. Information is not independently verified outside of the court record. For instance, clerical errors in address, omissions of a defendant, etc. are not readily verifiable. As this process matures, reporting algorithms may change. Transfers are counted as new cases. Clerical differences between original case and transfer (e.g., middle initial included then dropped; defendant dropped on transfer; street address spelling changed) as well as the potential for indefinite circular transferring (e.g., foreclosure cases moving between housing, land, and/or superior courts) make it very difficult to programmatically identify continuing matters. -- When Citing This Work, Please Credit: MassLandlords, Inc. Available online at https://masslandlords.net/policy/eviction-data/.