Filings Week Ending 2022 January 29

Residential summary process: Filings Report This report examines cases filed recently before reading, for which outcomes were largely unknown. Search Period Start: 2022-01-23 Search Period End: 2022-01-29 Earliest Case: 2022-01-24 Latest Case: 2022-01-28 Total Cases: 410 Total Transfers: 1 -- High-level take-aways: Percentage of landlords for whom attorney is optional: 24.6% Of those, percentage pro se: 53.5% Most common cause: Non-payment Least stable municipality/neighborhood: West Warren Least stable with 10+ filings: Quincy Least stable with 100+ filings: (not given) Least stable county: Barnstable Cases per day: 68 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 western 89 21.7% northeast 71 17.3% central 70 17.1% eastern 51 12.4% metro_south 46 11.2% southeast 38 9.3% bmc central 4 1.0% pittsfield district 4 1.0% quincy district 4 1.0% barnstable district 3 0.7% fallmouth district 3 0.7% springfield district 3 0.7% eastern hampshire district 2 0.5% lowell district 2 0.5% malden district 2 0.5% newton district 2 0.5% somerville district 2 0.5% woburn district 2 0.5% attleboro district 1 0.2% bmc east boston 1 0.2% brockton district 1 0.2% brookline district 1 0.2% clinton district 1 0.2% concord district 1 0.2% dedham district 1 0.2% gloucester district 1 0.2% lynn district 1 0.2% newburyport district 1 0.2% uxbridge district 1 0.2% westfield district 1 0.2% Party Type (n) Plaintiffs Defendants Corporate Entity 309 2 Natural Person 101 408 Total 410 410 (%) Plaintiffs Defendants Corporate Entity 75.4% 0.5% Natural Person 24.6% 99.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% Plaintiff Representation (n) Has Attorney Pro Se Total Required 299 10 309 Optional 47 54 101 Total 346 64 410 (%) Has Attorney Pro Se Total Required 72.9% 2.4% 75.4% Optional 11.5% 13.2% 24.6% Total 84.4% 15.6% 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 2 2 Optional 6 402 408 Total 6 404 410 (%) Has Attorney Pro Se Total Required 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% Optional 1.5% 98.0% 99.5% Total 1.5% 98.5% 100.0% Number of Adults in Households Count Percent 0 31 7.6% 1 301 73.4% 2 61 14.9% 3 11 2.7% 4 3 0.7% 5 2 0.5% 6 1 0.2% Total 410 100.0% 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 268 65.4% Cause 69 16.8% No Fault 62 15.1% Foreclosure 11 2.7% Unknown/Other 0 0.0% Rate per 100,000 Municipality Residents Count West Warren 88 1 Sagamore 81 3 South Lancaster 61 1 Sharon 34 6 Clinton 29 4 Leicester 27 3 South Yarmouth 25 3 Avon 22 1 Westborough 21 4 Ware 20 2 Newtonville 19 1 South Easton 19 2 Ashland 18 3 Marlborough 18 7 East Falmouth 17 1 Quincy 17 16 Rockland 17 3 Southbridge 17 3 Ashburnham 16 1 Hopedale 16 1 Sudbury 16 3 Centerville 14 2 Fitchburg 14 6 Hyannis 14 2 Whitinsville 14 1 Cohasset 13 1 Norwood 13 4 Westminster 13 1 Plainville 12 1 Rutland 12 1 Blackstone 11 1 Fall River 11 10 Brockton 9 9 Leominster 9 4 Braintree 8 3 Feeding Hills 8 1 New Bedford 8 8 Pittsfield 8 4 Rehoboth 8 1 Worcester 8 16 Bedford 7 1 Dorchester 7 7 East Bridgewater 7 1 Framingham 7 5 Kingston 7 1 Marshfield 7 2 Milford 7 2 Oxford 7 1 Abington 6 1 Amesbury 6 1 Natick 6 2 Northbridge 6 1 Whitman 6 1 Foxborough 5 1 Mattapan 5 2 Norton 5 1 Woburn 5 2 Canton 4 1 East Boston 4 2 East Wareham 4 1 Middleborough 4 1 North Dartmouth 4 1 Onset 4 1 Franklin 3 1 Medford 3 2 Randolph 3 1 Revere 3 2 Somerville 3 3 Stoughton 3 1 Taunton 3 2 Attleborough 2 1 E. Boston 2 1 Everett 2 1 Lowell 2 3 South Boston 2 1 Brookline 1 1 Dorchester Center 1 1 Lynn 1 1 Malden 1 1 Newton Highlands 1 1 South Weymouth 1 1 Weymouth 1 1 (not given) 0 195 Boston 0 5 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 56 11 Plymouth 48 21 Norfolk 46 40 Worcester 46 52 Bristol 31 26 Berkshire 24 4 Middlesex 15 35 Hampshire 10 2 Suffolk 10 21 Essex 1 2 Hampden 1 1 Dukes 0 0 Franklin 0 0 Nantucket 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/.