Horton v. Washington: Judge Rules No Retaliation in Landlord–Tenant Case

By Kimberly Rau, MassLandlords, Inc.

A 2024 ruling from the Eastern Housing Court determined that landlord Aletta Horton did not act in retaliation when she sought to recover possession of her Hyde Park property via summary process action. The court found the claims from her tenants, the former owners of the property, were unfounded and awarded her possession.

The property at 10 Waterloo St., where tenants Jayme and Brian Washington alleged their landlord was retaliating against them by issuing a notice to quit. The courts determined otherwise. (Image: Google Earth)

This is an important case in a state that has some of the most tenant-friendly laws in the country, including statutes that protect renters from retaliation. However, as this stemmed from a no-fault/without cause eviction, it also proves our point that eviction sealing is going to cause headaches for landlords.

In this article, we’ll briefly discuss what retaliation is, and look at why the landlord in Horton v. Washington was found to be in the right.

What Is Retaliation?

Landlords have the right to raise the rent for their properties and decide whether a lease should continue. Usually, you don’t need a reason for these actions. However, if you raise the rent or terminate a tenancy within six months of your renters exercising their rights, that could be considered retaliation. “Exercising rights” includes starting or joining a tenants’ union, asking the Board of Health for an inspection, or reporting legal violations. These are actions your renters are legally allowed to take, which you cannot punish them for.

If your tenants claim retaliation, the burden of proof is on you, the landlord, to show that you had some other reason to make changes to the tenancy during that six-month time period. It’s best to make sure you have a strong argument for your actions.

We have a larger article that goes in-depth on how landlords can avoid a retaliation claim, which we recommend you read. Fighting a retaliation charge can be a long, costly court process that you don’t want to find yourself involved in.

Horton v. Washington – Underpaid Rent Leads to Summary Process Action

According to public records, Aletta Horton purchased 10 Waterloo St., Hyde Park, at auction in 2019. The property was in foreclosure at the time. Horton allowed former homeowners Jayme and Brian Washington to rent the 4,700-square-foot house from her. Court documents state the rent was initially $3,500 a month, though no written lease was in place. The initial plan was to sell the property back to the Washingtons, but that did not happen.

These facts are not disputed. However, Horton and the Washingtons disagree on whether Horton agreed to lower the rent in 2022. The Washingtons argue that Horton was on board with them paying only $3,000 a month; Horton states this was never the plan. Regardless, the Washingtons paid $3,000 a month starting in February 2022.

In January 2023, Horton issued her renters a notice to quit. When they did not vacate the property, she issued a summary process and complaint through a constable in March 2023. The court issued an order for monthly use and occupancy payments of $3,250 in October 2023.

Tenants Claim Property Issues Were Ignored, Judge Determines Otherwise

In response to the summary process case against them, the Washingtons also filed a countersuit against Horton, claiming breach of quiet enjoyment, violation of consumer protection laws and retaliation.

The renters claimed that multiple problems with their rental home had been ignored, leading Horton to evict them instead of fixing the issues.

However, the court found little evidence for the Washingtons’ allegations.

“Mrs. Washington alleged the Premises suffered a leak, but did not present any evidence of any such condition,” court documents state.

“Additionally, she failed to introduce any evidence she communicated a conditions defect to Plaintiff, at any time. She further testified that the Boston Water and Sewer Commission indicated it would shut off the water, but it was never shut off. In any case, Mrs. Washington admitted she did not pay any water bill.”

The only exhibit introduced by the renters was a single email dated April 14, 2022, which the court found did not support the Washingtons’ counterclaims. Their claims of disruption of quiet enjoyment and violation of consumer protection laws were dismissed for a similar lack of evidence.

The Washingtons claimed retaliation based on a civil action they had filed in October 2022 regarding the water bill for the property. However, the court determined that matter had been resolved “amicably” through mediation in the same month. The Washingtons did file a motion to enforce the decision, but did so six months after Horton had issued the notice to quit.

“Independent Reason” for Summary Process Bolsters No Retaliation Finding

Additionally, Horton testified that the large home and property was costing her $9,000 a month to maintain and needed to be sold. A Zillow listing for the property confirms it has been on the market at various price points since at least January 2023.

“Furthermore, the Court credits Plaintiff’s testimony concerning a pressing financial hardship upon her in maintaining Tenants, as her tenants, and finds said financial hardship anchors an independent reason for commencing this summary process action,” the decision reads. It explicitly stated that the no-fault eviction could not be seen as retaliatory.

“Even if Tenants had met their burden of proof, the Plaintiff rebutted any presumption of retaliation in serving the [notice to quit],” it concluded.

The court issued a ruling in favor of the landlord, including possession of the property, as well as $26,250 in lost rent, plus fees and interest.

The court ruled in favor of the landlord in Horton v. Washington, but it could have gone differently. Always hire a lawyer. Always have a lease. (Image – Public Domain)

Things Could Have Gone Differently

In this case, Horton was able to show the court she had not acted in a retaliatory manner by providing solid reasons for issuing a notice to quit, including her tenants’ underpayment of rent, high property costs and her need to sell the property unoccupied. (It didn’t hurt that her tenants’ claims appeared to the court to be unfounded.) If she had issued a notice to quit after receiving reports of legitimate issues with the property, and did not have a pressing financial reason to have the property vacated, things might have gone differently.

The lack of a written lease almost certainly made things more difficult for Horton. Without a lease stating the rent, the dispute surrounding the alleged rent reduction became up to the courts to determine. It would have been easier to disprove had there been a lease in place, as any amendment to the rent would have required a new lease be signed.

This also highlights the importance of having proper legal representation. Massachusetts law requires landlords who operate under an LLC to hire an attorney for court proceedings, but does not make the same requirement of independent landlords. Horton had attorney Jordana Roubicek Greenman advising her, and the tenants appeared pro se. However, the tenants only had to present evidence of their retaliation claim to have a leg to stand on. They failed, but if they had had a lawyer, and Horton had appeared pro se instead, things may have gone differently. Always hire an attorney for legal matters.

Conclusion

This case ended in a landlord victory, but highlights a looming issue for landlords. Horton v. Washington was a no-fault/no-cause-stated eviction case, meaning the Washingtons may petition to have their eviction sealed as early as May 2025, when the new eviction sealing laws take effect in Massachusetts. Had it been an eviction for nonpayment of rent, they would have had to wait at least four years to have their eviction sealed.

This means that any landlord the Washingtons may encounter in the future could proceed with no knowledge of the lengthy and expensive battle Horton went through to regain possession of her property. Will it cause the next housing provider to lose tens of thousands of dollars in rent? For their sake, we hope not.