Massachusetts Eviction Sealing Law Explained (193 H.4977 Section 52)

Eviction sealing is in effect May 2025. Here’s the full text of the law, in plain English.

Eviction Sealing Full Text Explained

Below we explain the eviction sealing law enacted August 2024. The law modifies Chapter 93 and Chapter 239.

Sealed records are protected in all forms of consumer reporting.

Chapter 93 governs consumer reports. These can no longer contain sealed court records.

Chapter 239 is the law on eviction. A new section has been added.

Definitions

The law redefines some terms already defined elsewhere, creating confusion with credit reporting law.

This law attempts to redefine a consumer report, which is already defined in Chapter 93, Section 50. In doing so, this eliminates needed procedure in that consumer protection law. For instance, this narrower definition prohibits housing providers from talking about a rental application with a case worker assisting the renter in housing search.

Bad for good renters, renters with housing barriers and bad renters: Housing providers cannot freely talk with other housing providers, with renter case workers or with anyone about a renter experience (good, bad or indifferent) for fear it may relate to a sealed case.

Eviction sealing applies to all background check companies, to MassLandlords and to any individual who ever comments on, in any way, their experience with any renter. These vague and seemingly all-encompassing definitions severely limit speech.

For example, if one landlord is talking to another at dinner about a bad experience they had, and this dinner occurs “regularly,” that could be considered prohibited speech.

Bad for housing providers: This chills speech by all housing providers for fear it may pertain to a sealed record.

The law has redefined “court.”

Bad for the Land Court and banks: This broad definition includes the Land Court, which may refer to an eviction as part of a foreclosure, creating potential for redacted and partially sealed foreclosure documents.

Court records are defined here as every document in court possession related to eviction or if a renter sues a landlord (rare).

Under this law, all evictions are sealed.

If a renter sues a landlord, that is also to be kept secret. This protects bad landlords.

Bad for good renters: If a landlord is sued for not doing their job, no other renter may ever see that.

This law expands the definition of “no-fault eviction” to include any for-cause eviction where the breach is not “material,” whatever that means.

Bad for the courts: Court staff will have to read the docket to understand what type of eviction the case is; the stated reason in the notice is not enough.

A tenancy is terminated when a notice to quit is sent. We think this is meant to cover the serving and filing of a summary process summons and complaint. It could be meant to recast all future eviction attempts as the same as the first, however many years prior.

Bad for housing providers: It looks like we get only one chance to state our reasons for eviction.

No-fault evictions are immediately sealed.

A renter can seal a no-fault eviction, preventing it from being seen or discussed by any landlord ever again, when the case is done and over.

No-fault evictions are used to clear a building for sale or renovation only if the landlord is dumb or the renter refuses a relocation assistance payment. The courts are just too slow for a no-fault eviction to make sense on any normal development or brokerage timeline.

Why are there any no-fault evictions? Because not all landlords can meet evidentiary standards.

Bad for good renters in no-smoking buildings: In the case Gwendolyn Property Management v. Goodwin, Johnson (2021, 21H85SP001694), a for-cause case with witnesses was brought against smokers in a no-smoking building. But the judge threw it out as hearsay. A second eviction later got the renters out. No-fault cases are used when a landlord fails to meet evidentiary standards or when renters are afraid to testify.

A renter seeking to seal a case must go back to the court where they were evicted and get a form. Some forms may now be ordered by mail. All forms cost money, unless a renter knows to file an affidavit of indigency.

A renter may seal records in all applicable courts. For example, a case filed in district court might have been transferred to housing court.

A renter doesn’t have to notify the evictor landlord that they’re seeking to seal a case.

The court has no discretion here; the paperwork is a formality.

A landlord only has 7 days to file an objection. The court is free to have a hearing, but there’s really no point because they must comply. And without notice, the landlord won’t find out. So, there will be no hearing.

Nonpayment evictions may be sealed in 4 years (read on).

A renter may ask to seal a nonpayment eviction.

Like a no-fault eviction, the renter must go back to the court where they were evicted.

A nonpayment case can be sealed in all applicable courts.

Now, unlike no-fault, someone must give notice to the original evictor landlord. Notice requires proof of delivery. This often necessitates hiring a constable or a sheriff.

Bad for even bad renters: To seal a no-fault case, the renter must pay someone to serve the landlord a notice.

The courts must seal a nonpayment case if all of the following apply:

1.) the case and appeal ended more 4 or more years ago; AND

2.) the renter hasn’t been filed against for nonpayment in the last 4 years; AND

Good for housing providers: Repeat offenders cannot have their cases sealed. After years of arguing against eviction sealing, one point sank in. Hooray!

3.) the renter says they suffered economic hardship (not that they were indigent) and haven’t been able to pay off the landlord because of that hardship.

Arguably, when the cable company raises the subscription price on a renter barely making ends meet, that’s a hardship. Likely anything will count as a hardship.

Bad for the courts: There is more work to do to determine the renter’s hardship.

Here, the process gets murky. The evictor landlord has to be given notice, but the law is silent on when that notice is given relative to when the case may be filed. A renter in an eviction case gets up to one full rental period’s notice. Will an evictor landlord be given the same?

If an evictor landlord does not object in time, the courts will seal the case.

The evictor landlord has a right to a hearing on why the case should not be sealed. Here there are no standards. Imagine the evictor landlord, still angry about a long, drawn-out eviction process, coming back to court and listing 101 reasons why the renter really did have that money or could have paid. Now our beleaguered court staff must hear the whole eviction all over again.

Bad for the courts: In order to seal a nonpayment case, the courts have to do a whole eviction hearing all over again.

For-cause evictions can be sealed in 7 years.

This law provides a process to seal for-causes cases, especially those where the renter definitely did do the bad thing they were alleged to have done.

The renter who was evicted for cause must go back to that same court.

All applicable court records in all courts may be sealed.

The landlord must be notified. See above description about the ambiguity of what this means.

Here again the courts have little discretion. The record must be sealed as long as the case and all appeals finished 7 years ago or further back, and the renter has not been filed against for cause in the last 7 years.

Bad for the courts: In all of these provisions, the courts have to positively identify a renter. Is the “John Smith” before me the same as “John A. Smith” who was evicted for cause 3 years ago? That is impossible to determine, because unique identifiers like social security numbers are never attached to a court record. God forbid someone changes their name (e.g., through marriage), then this becomes a complete mess.

The prior landlord has 7 days (from some date unclear) to object.

If the case was for the less frequently used “common nuisance” law, then these evictions may also be sealed under certain circumstances.

The renter who was evicted for cause must go back to that same court.

All applicable court records in all courts may be sealed.

Again, the landlord must be notified. Again, the timing and method of this is still unclear.

If the case was for the less frequently used “common nuisance” law, then the records must be sealed only if there was no conviction for any common nuisance in the past 7 years, in any state or federally. Common nuisance means prostitution, lewdness, gambling, alcohol served to minors, bootlegging, threat of violence, drugs, firearms and other illegal weapons, and explosives.

Bad for the courts: Not only do they have to check all civil cases, but potentially someone has to check all criminal cases, too, for repeat offenders.

More things for the courts to determine.

All evictions dismissed or lost can be sealed immediately.

If an eviction is dismissed, or the final judgment is awarded for the renter (rare), then a case may be sealed.

No matter what kind of eviction was filed, if the renter wins in court, they may have their case sealed. Again, the renter must go back to the court where they were filed against.

(This is section “E-and-a-half” because there was no time to insert this section and update subsequent sections. This law was written as if by school children writing their book report the night before it was due having not read the book.)

All applicable records in all courts may be sealed.

The landlord need not receive notice.

The court can have a hearing about nothing, if they want, or they can just seal the record.

Journalists, researchers and law enforcement must apply for access to court data.

If any police officer, journalist, researcher, teacher or government official wants access to any or all sealed records, they must petition the court for this access or find someone who already knows.

Note that MassLandlords researchers read all cases upon filing and will not be motioning the court for access to filing data, as all records are and will be in our possession already.

Bad for democracy: We need to see more of how our government operates, not less.
Bad for journalists: Dictatorships license journalists, and so does Massachusetts under this law. Courts now have to decide if you are “journalist enough” to have access to data.
Bad for law enforcement: Someone wanted for arrest who is couch surfing may be impossible to find until that landlord files a case for unauthorized occupants and puts their name into the record.

Personally identifiable information can never be released except by special permission.

Since MassLandlords vs. EOHLC 2024, some will argue that addresses are personally identifiable information. That wrong decision combined with this law sharply curtails the ability to geocode evictions to understand their effects in a peer-reviewed journal, which is exactly what MassLandlords staff were doing when the law passed. All this shows that most public officials don’t care about the pursuit of truth.

Sealed records may never be used for commercial purposes.

Most journalism is for commercial purposes. This law has a chilling effect on serious inquiries into court procedure, rental assistance administration and more.

Bad for journalists: Any newspaper seeking to make money with its reporting could be barred from data access under this clause.

Housing providers whose judgments have not been invalidated can still try to collect.

Despite all of the foregoing, if the landlord needs to divulge the sealed eviction to collect a judgment, and the debt has not already been canceled, they can do so. Judgments last for 20 years.

Good for housing providers: But saying this is “good” is like thanking a robber for only taking from the till and not breaking our window.

If the sealed eviction is part of the investigation of a crime, or evidence in a court case about a crime, that information may be divulged.

A renter or a landlord can see their court record even if sealed.

A renter or their representative can ask to access their record.

“Representative” in the context of this law means specifically the counterpart to a senator, specifically, the renter’s representative in general court or house legislator. This is clearly not what the writers had in mind, but once again, their true intent is easily misunderstood. The drafters likely meant “a renter or their agent.”

Good for the legislature: Drafting error in your favor! All representatives get to read eviction records about constituents. Enjoy!

Credit reporting and background check companies must not report on sealed cases, even if sealed after data collection occurs.

Consumer reporting agencies must be constantly vigilant to scrub their database of sealed records. Notice of sealing will not be given to consumer reporting agencies.

Many consumer reporting agencies will rightly drop even non-sealed eviction records from reports for fear of noncompliance.

Bad for credit reporting  and background check companies. A key service will be made unlawful.
Good for landlords. Because of careless drafting, we are not included in this definition. We are therefore still permitted to use sealed evictions in our scoring system if we find out about them another way. For instance, if a renter tells us their eviction was sealed, we can still disqualify them from housing because of this. Please continue to give equal housing opportunity by determining whether any such sealed eviction disclosed to you is still housing relevant.

Credit reporting agencies can use unsealed court information.

The consumer reporting agency must provide enough detail for a landlord to know roughly what the case was about and who won.

Again, consumer reporting agencies must now continually monitor all evictions to identify those that have gone missing from the public record and are now sealed.

A renter whose sealed eviction gets used against them can sue the credit reporting agency who inadvertently shared the sealed record. Attorneys will win, because their fees are included. Renters will win massively, because the damages incurred could be any number of years’ rent once denied the apartment of their dreams.

Very bad for credit reporting companies and background check companies. This opens the door to lawsuits and will have a chilling effect on the inclusion of any court history from Massachusetts.
Good for landlords. We were omitted from this definition. If we deny a renter on the basis of a sealed eviction discovered independently of the courts, we are not liable under this law. Note that Chapter 93A still applies and we may be found to be engaged in unfair or deceptive practices anyhow.

The attorney general will litigate on behalf of renters wrongly denied because of sealed eviction records.

Other penalties, such as triple damages under Chapter 93A, as well as any other damages that someone may be able to find legal justification for, may be applied to consumer reporting agencies.

Renters can hire their own attorney, too.

Chapter 93A calling for triple damages also applies.

Renters may sometimes lie about having been evicted.

Every rental application must be updated to include a phrase mandated by law, in English only, that says an applicant can lie about having an eviction if that record is sealed.

(Note: There is no provision made for applications written in any other language. This is a common mistake in Massachusetts legislation. We have no official language, so any law requiring a certain English language statement be used is prima facie unenforceable. Recommended best practice would be to have the person who translated your application include a translated version of this phrase.)

Bad for good renters: Housing providers will find it difficult to rely on court records or renter statements when screening tenants, so new neighbors will be more likely to smoke, have loud music, house a gang or who knows what.
Bad for the legislature: This will be added onto the heap of laws challengeable under federal discrimination protections for mandating the use of the English language in housing.

If a landlord does not have this provision on their application, they can get away with it if the attorney general has not given them a warning and 90 days to fix the issue.

When the court issues an order to themselves to seal a record, they must notify themselves about the renter’s right to lie on an application. This section probably means to notify the renter, but this does not specifically say the renter will receive the order to seal any record.

Housing providers must report to the court when a judgment for money has been paid off.

Judgments in Massachusetts last for 20 years. If a nonpayment judgment is later paid down by the renter, then the landlord must notify the court that the renter did so. The courts then record this as “satisfaction of the judgment.”

The same applies to agreements, but since agreements for judgment are often satisfied on a continuous basis, this clause is unclear. For example, an agreement for judgment may be, “Pay all rent by the 5th.” Does the landlord have to file a satisfaction every month? That is probably not what the writers meant, but again, this law is poorly conceived.

Bad for housing providers: Continuing satisfaction of agreements may require continuous reporting to the court. Very old obligations may require a lawyer, if the landlord does not know how to proceed.

Debt cancellation: Renters can invalidate a court’s decision and a landlord’s legal claim.

If the landlord doesn’t file the satisfaction, the renter can petition the court to declare the judgment satisfied. Notice to the landlord must be given.

That sounds reasonable, except what happens if a renter is prepared to perjure themselves?

This is the scariest part of the whole law. This is very bad for housing providers: Court judgments may be invalidated by a renter saying they paid off a landlord. If they lie, precious little process will be available to detect the lie and protect the landlord’s legal claim.

Now the courts must have a whole trial to determine if the renter did in fact satisfy the judgment.

This section is akin to hearing the eviction a second time. Now the courts have to determine whether a renter did pay (as opposed to an eviction, where they determine whether a renter didn’t pay).

Any renter can petition to have their debt canceled, even if they haven’t paid it off. It will be up to the landlord to object.

The landlord has 7 days to object and start the debt cancellation proceedings. If they don’t, then debt cancellation is automatic.

This creates a process for renters to invalidate prior court judgments well before the 20-year collection deadline.  That’s ample opportunity for litigation against the commonwealth under the takings clause of the constitution.

Evictions with a satisfied judgment will be sealed immediately.

If an evictor landlord notifies the court that the judgment has been satisfied, or if the renter wins their debt cancellation, then the record may be sealed.

There will be paperwork to start sealing following debt cancellation.

All courts can have their judgments reversed and debts cancelled.

The original landlord must be notified.

The court has no discretion about reversing a judgment. The landlord has 7 days to object.

If there is no objection, no hearing is required.

 

Advertisement

Advertisement

Eviction Movers Proxima

Advertisement

Advertisement