Filings Week Ending 2021 July 10

Residential summary process: Filings Report This report examines cases filed recently before reading, for which outcomes were largely unknown. Search Period Start: 2021-07-04 Search Period End: 2021-07-10 Earliest Case: 2021-07-05 Latest Case: 2021-07-09 Total Cases: 392 Total Transfers: 9 -- High-level take-aways: Percentage of landlords for whom attorney is optional: 40.3% Of those, percentage pro se: 44.9% Most common cause: Non-payment Least stable municipality/neighborhood: East Falmouth Least stable with 10+ filings: Fall River Least stable with 100+ filings: n/a Least stable county: Bristol Cases per day: 65 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 central 75 19.1% northeast 69 17.6% western 68 17.3% southeast 59 15.1% eastern 41 10.5% metro_south 31 7.9% chelsea district 6 1.5% ayer district 5 1.3% bmc west roxbury 5 1.3% northern berkshire district 5 1.3% pittsfield district 4 1.0% attleboro district 3 0.8% lawrence district 3 0.8% quincy district 3 0.8% waltham district 3 0.8% lowell district 2 0.5% bmc east boston 1 0.3% eastern hampshire district 1 0.3% framingham district 1 0.3% haverhill district 1 0.3% lynn district 1 0.3% malden district 1 0.3% nantucket district 1 0.3% peabody district 1 0.3% springfield district 1 0.3% worcester district 1 0.3% Party Type (n) Plaintiffs Defendants Corporate Entity 234 0 Natural Person 158 392 Total 392 392 (%) Plaintiffs Defendants Corporate Entity 59.7% 0.0% Natural Person 40.3% 100.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% Plaintiff Representation (n) Has Attorney Pro Se Total Required 227 7 234 Optional 87 71 158 Total 314 78 392 (%) Has Attorney Pro Se Total Required 57.9% 1.8% 59.7% Optional 22.2% 18.1% 40.3% Total 80.1% 19.9% 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 0 0 Optional 4 388 392 Total 4 388 392 (%) Has Attorney Pro Se Total Required 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Optional 1.0% 99.0% 100.0% Total 1.0% 99.0% 100.0% Number of Adults in Households Count Percent 0 41 10.5% 1 253 64.5% 2 79 20.2% 3 11 2.8% 4 6 1.5% 5 1 0.3% 7 1 0.3% Total 392 100.0% 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 218 55.6% No Fault 93 23.7% Cause 78 19.9% Foreclosure 3 0.8% Unknown/Other 0 0.0% Rate per 100,000 Municipality Residents Count East Falmouth 69 4 Clarksburg 58 1 Southbridge 41 7 Saugus 33 9 East Taunton 31 2 Fall River 30 27 Northborough 28 4 Ayer 26 2 Edgartown 24 1 Adams 23 2 Framingham 23 16 Townsend 22 2 Eastham 20 1 Lawrence 19 15 Maynard 19 2 Revere 19 10 Fitchburg 17 7 Roslindale 17 5 South Yarmouth 17 2 Mattapoisett 16 1 Andover 15 5 Berkley 15 1 Chelsea 14 5 Tewksbury 13 4 North Grafton 12 1 Taunton 12 7 Blackstone 11 1 Rockland 11 2 Stoughton 11 3 Sudbury 11 2 Sutton 11 1 Winthrop 11 2 Worcester 11 20 Ware 10 1 Acton 9 2 Leominster 9 4 Nantucket 9 1 Quincy 9 9 Rochdale 9 1 South Easton 9 1 Wrentham 9 1 Athol 8 1 Dedham 8 2 Pittsfield 8 4 Shrewsbury 8 3 Brockton 7 7 Clinton 7 1 Dennis 7 1 East Boston 7 3 Holliston 7 1 Kingston 7 1 Mashpee 7 1 Uxbridge 7 1 Abington 6 1 Amesbury 6 1 Bellingham 6 1 Duxbury 6 1 Fairhaven 6 1 Haverhill 6 4 Lowell 6 7 Natick 6 2 Somerville 6 5 Westwood 6 1 Braintree 5 2 Charlestown 5 1 Dorchester 5 5 Norton 5 1 Webster 5 1 Weymouth 5 3 Belmont 4 1 Everett 4 2 Gardner 4 1 Walpole 4 1 Waltham 4 3 Wilmington 4 1 Brookline 3 2 Dracut 3 1 Milford 3 1 New Bedford 3 3 North Andover 3 1 North Attleborough 3 1 Peabody 3 2 Roxbury 3 2 Attleborough 2 1 Beverly 2 1 Chelmsford 2 1 Hyde Park 2 1 Jamaica Plain 2 1 Marlborough 2 1 Methuen 2 1 Cambridge 1 2 Dorchester Center 1 1 East Weymouth 1 1 Malden 1 1 Newton Highlands 1 1 Plymouth 1 1 Roxbury Crossing 1 1 (not given) 0 93 Boston 0 4 Springfield 0 1 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 Bristol 54 45 Worcester 49 55 Barnstable 46 9 Berkshire 43 7 Essex 35 39 Plymouth 32 14 Norfolk 30 26 Nantucket 28 1 Middlesex 25 59 Dukes 24 1 Suffolk 20 41 Hampshire 5 1 Hampden 1 1 Franklin 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/.