Slavin v. Rent Control Board of Brookline
548 N.E.2d 1226 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a residential lease, a provision requiring the landlord's consent for an assignment or sublease does not, as a matter of law, imply a landlord's obligation to act reasonably in withholding that consent.
Facts:
- The defendant tenant, Barry Myers, signed a residential lease with the plaintiff landlord.
- The lease contained a clause prohibiting Myers from subletting or allowing another person to occupy the apartment without first obtaining the landlord's written consent.
- Myers' original cotenant moved out of the apartment.
- Myers subsequently allowed an unauthorized person to occupy the apartment without first requesting or obtaining the landlord's written consent.
- The landlord had a categorical policy of refusing to allow the tenant to bring in any new occupant.
Procedural Posture:
- The landlord applied to the Brookline Rent Control Board (board) for a certificate of eviction.
- The board held a hearing and denied the landlord's application, ruling that the landlord had acted unreasonably.
- The landlord sought judicial review in the Brookline Division of the District Court (a trial court).
- The District Court judge annulled the board's decision and ordered that the certificate of eviction be issued.
- The board (appellant) appealed the District Court's ruling to the Appellate Division of the District Court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial judge's decision and also awarded the landlord (appellee) double costs and attorneys' fees.
- The board then applied for direct appellate review to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, which granted the application.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a provision in a residential lease requiring the landlord's written consent to an assignment, sublease, or other occupancy imply a duty for the landlord to not unreasonably withhold that consent?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Connor, J.
No. A provision in a residential lease requiring the landlord's consent to an assignment or sublease does not imply a duty on the landlord to act reasonably in withholding consent. The court aligned with the majority of jurisdictions, which permit a landlord to refuse consent arbitrarily or unreasonably unless the lease explicitly states otherwise. The court distinguished this case from a growing trend requiring reasonableness in commercial leases by noting two key differences. First, the concern in commercial cases that landlords might withhold consent for unfair financial gain is mitigated in a rent-controlled jurisdiction like Brookline, where landlords have limited control over rent. Second, while the alienability of commercial property is a paramount concern in an urban society, the same necessity has not been established for residential properties to a degree that warrants imposing a reasonableness requirement on landlords who have not agreed to one. The court concluded that changing this common law rule is a matter of public policy better addressed by the legislature.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the default rule in Massachusetts for residential leases, affirming that a landlord's power to refuse consent for a sublease is absolute unless limited by the express terms of the lease. It clearly distinguishes the rules for residential and commercial leases, halting the extension of the modern trend requiring reasonableness into the residential context. The ruling reinforces principles of freedom of contract, placing the burden on tenants to negotiate for a clause requiring the landlord to be reasonable. By deferring to the legislature, the court signaled that any change to this long-standing common law principle must come from statutory enactment rather than judicial reinterpretation.
Unlock the full brief for Slavin v. Rent Control Board of Brookline