Case Title: Saipe v. Sullivan & Co., Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12853

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2021-03-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-12853 
 
BRIAN L. SAIPE  vs.  SULLIVAN & COMPANY, INC. 
 
 
March 1, 2021. 
 
 
Summary Process.  Housing Court.  Handicapped Persons.  
Practice, Civil, Summary process, Moot case.  Supreme 
Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
The petitioner, Brian L. Saipe (tenant or Saipe), is the 
defendant in the underlying summary process eviction action 
brought by the respondent, Sullivan & Company, Inc. (landlord).  
This appeal consolidates (1) Saipe's appeal on the merits from a 
judgment of the Housing Court awarding possession to the 
landlord and (2) his appeals from various rulings by single 
justices of the Appeals Court and of this court denying certain 
requests for disabilities accommodations in the Appeals Court 
and the county court.  For the reasons discussed below, we 
conclude that Saipe's appeals regarding his requests for 
disabilities accommodations in the Appeals Court and in our 
single justice session are moot, and we affirm the underlying 
Housing Court judgment. 
 
Background.1  Saipe has resided at an apartment in Milton 
since 2002.  His tenancy has been governed by a written lease 
and by subsequent renewals of the lease.  Both parties had the 
right to terminate the tenancy at the conclusion of the lease 
term without citing any reasons, although the lease required the 
landlord to give Saipe notice of nonrenewal at least sixty days 
prior to the expiration of the lease term. 
 
                                                          
 
 
1 Unless otherwise specified, we draw the facts from the 
Housing Court judge's memorandum of decision and order. 
2 
 
 
 
Saipe paid the landlord a last month's rent when he moved 
into the apartment.  The landlord paid interest on this amount 
over the years of the tenancy, either by a check payable to 
Saipe or by a credit on his rental account.  Also, over the 
course of the tenancy, Saipe has made "numerous demands for 
repairs and service[,] including repairs to his refrigerator, 
repairs to his air conditioning unit, issues with insects, and 
issues with mice," and the landlord's maintenance person 
provided the requested maintenance and repairs. 
 
In May of 2018, the landlord was in the process of 
installing a fire alarm system to serve the apartment complex.  
Saipe objected to the plan and, without consulting the landlord, 
telephoned the vendor directly, disrupting the installation.  On 
May 29, 2018, more than sixty days prior to the expiration of 
the lease term, the landlord served Saipe with a notice of 
nonrenewal of the lease.  Among other things, the notice stated 
that "any payments received for any period after the expiration 
of your tenancy shall be accepted for use and occupancy only and 
shall not create any new tenancy with you."2,3  The lease then 
expired by its terms on July 31, 2018. 
 
Saipe failed to vacate on July 31, 2018.  The landlord 
served Saipe with a summary process summons and complaint on 
August 6, 2018.  Trial was scheduled in the District Court.  
Saipe timely filed an answer and counterclaims, requested a jury 
trial, and filed discovery requests.  The trial date was 
automatically continued to September 6, 2018, and subsequently 
rescheduled for October 3, 2018. 
 
Sometime after the continued trial date, Saipe contacted 
the board of health of Milton to report several substandard 
conditions on the premises.  After inspection, the board issued 
a report describing several conditions in need of correction.  
The landlord repaired these conditions after receiving the 
violation notice from the board. 
 
Days before the scheduled jury trial, Saipe, through 
counsel, removed the case to the Housing Court.  On November 14, 
2018, Saipe sought an accommodation from the landlord on the 
basis of alleged disabilities, requesting that the landlord 
                                                          
 
2 At the time the landlord made the decision not to renew 
the lease, it was unaware of any disability claimed by Saipe. 
 
3 Saipe has continued to pay a monthly amount to the 
landlord throughout these proceedings. 
3 
 
 
 
discontinue the summary process proceeding and renew his lease 
for at least another year.  The landlord refused the requested 
accommodation but offered to enter a stipulation that would 
avoid judgment entering on the complaint in order to allow Saipe 
additional time to relocate. 
 
The parties eventually filed a jury waiver, and a bench 
trial took place in the Housing Court on three dates in November 
and December of 2018.  Saipe's medical providers testified at 
the trial that Saipe suffers from several disorders that affect 
his ability to function, "including the inability to sustain and 
shift focus, to initiate effort, to organize and prioritize 
information, and to manage his time."  On February 14, 2019, the 
Housing Court judge issued a decision in which she determined 
that the landlord had made a prima facie case for possession.  
The judge then addressed and rejected each of Saipe's defenses 
and counterclaims, which included "(a) [that] the tenancy was 
not properly terminated or was revived because the Landlord 
allegedly 'accepted rent without a reservation of rights after 
expiration of my lease,' (b) retaliation for telling the 
Landlord about bad conditions, (c) discrimination on the basis 
of disability, (d) reasonable accommodation, (e) avoidance of 
forfeiture, (f) breach of the implied warranty of habitability, 
(g) failure to pay interest on last month's rent, (h) breach of 
quiet enjoyment 'for failure to provide adequate 
security/protection against break-ins,' and (i) violation of the 
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Statute on account of 
allegedly 'unlawful terms in my lease.'" 
 
The judge awarded possession to the landlord, but in 
recognition that Saipe "has a disability which -- to some degree 
-- has impeded his ability to secure alternative housing at the 
same pace as another tenant without such disabilities," she 
granted Saipe "a reasonable accommodation in the form of a 
limited stay of execution pursuant to [G. L. c. 239, § 9]" 
(footnote omitted).  The judge ordered the execution to issue on 
March 15, 2019, but specified that the execution should not be 
served until June 1, 2019, provided Saipe remained current with 
his use and occupancy payments, among other requirements. 
 
Saipe timely appealed.  After his appeal was docketed in 
the Appeals Court (No. 2019-P-0870), Saipe requested a number of 
disabilities accommodations from the Appeals Court, which 
requests were handled by a single justice of that court.  As 
detailed in the Appeals Court docket, after two hearings, some 
4 
 
 
 
of these requests were granted and others were not.4  Of 
particular relevance here, Saipe's request to present his 
argument orally in lieu of filing a brief was denied.  Thus, 
Saipe remained obligated to file a brief in the Appeals Court, 
although his deadline for doing so was extended a number of 
times. 
 
Saipe next filed a petition in the county court pursuant to 
G. L. c. 211, § 3, seeking relief from the rulings of the 
Appeals Court single justice.  While his petition was pending, 
Saipe requested a number of additional disabilities 
accommodations from this court, many of which were granted.  
After a hearing, the single justice denied the G. L. c. 211, 
§ 3, petition on the ground that Saipe had an alternative avenue 
to seek relief, namely, an appeal to a panel of the Appeals 
Court.  The single justice denied a motion for reconsideration 
and several other requests for relief, although on two 
occasions, the single justice ordered the Appeals Court to 
further extend the due date for Saipe's brief. 
 
Saipe subsequently appealed to a panel of the Appeals Court 
(No. 2019-P-1763) from the Appeals Court single justice's 
rulings, as our single justice had suggested.  Saipe also 
appealed to this court from our single justice's denial of his 
G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition and from the single justice's denial 
of certain of his requests for disabilities accommodations in 
this court (No. SJC-12853). 
 
Throughout this time, Saipe made two additional requests to 
stay the proceedings in the Appeals Court, or to file his brief 
late, which were denied.  Eventually, the deadline for filing 
Saipe's brief passed, and the Appeals Court entered a notice 
preceding dismissal.  Before his appeal was dismissed, however, 
this court transferred both of Saipe's Appeals Court cases sua 
sponte to this court and consolidated them with his appeal from 
the denial of his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition. 
 
Saipe has made a number of requests for disabilities 
accommodations in this court, as detailed in the docket, many of 
                                                          
 
 
4 Saipe had also filed a motion in the Appeals Court to stay 
the Housing Court execution.  The Appeals Court single justice 
who resolved that motion noted that no action was required on 
the motion because the execution was stayed by operation of law 
during the pendency of the appeal pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 
62, as amended, 423 Mass. 1409 (1996), and Rule 13 of the 
Uniform Summary Process Rules (1980). 
5 
 
 
 
which were granted, and some of which were not.  Of note, Saipe 
was permitted to present his legal arguments orally in the 
presence of the court clerk.  This presentation was transcribed 
and docketed as Saipe's brief on appeal.  Saipe also was 
relieved of his obligation as an appellant to file a record 
appendix.  That responsibility was assigned by the court to the 
landlord instead. 
 
Discussion.  As a result of our decision to transfer 
Saipe's underlying appeals to this court, his claims arising 
from his requests for disabilities accommodations in the Appeals 
Court -- including his appeal to a panel of that court, his 
appeal from the denial of his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition 
requesting relief from the orders of the Appeals Court single 
justice, and his appeal from the denial of certain of his 
requests for accommodation in this court's single justice 
session -- are now moot.  There being no occasion for further 
proceedings in those courts, a determination of the 
accommodations due would serve no purpose.  Instead, as a 
practical matter, this court's determinations as to the 
appropriate accommodations to be afforded to Saipe in 
prosecuting his appeal are reflected in this court's orders on 
his requests for accommodation in this court. 
 
We therefore turn to the merits of Saipe's appeal from the 
Housing Court's judgment.  "When reviewing the trial judge's 
decision, we accept [her] findings of fact as true unless they 
are clearly erroneous, and we give due regard to the judge's 
assessment of the witnesses' credibility."  Andover Hous. Auth. 
v. Shkolnik, 443 Mass. 300, 306 (2005), citing Mass. R. Civ. P. 
52 (a), as amended, 423 Mass. 1402 (1996). 
 
Based on our review of the record, the evidence at trial 
amply supported the judge's findings and legal conclusions.  Of 
particular significance, Saipe has not offered any basis for us 
to displace the judge's finding that the landlord made the 
decision not to renew the lease before the landlord learned of 
Saipe's disabilities and before Saipe reported the landlord's 
violations to the board of health.  In short, we affirm the 
Housing Court judge's very detailed and well-reasoned decision. 
 
We have recently clarified and confirmed "the obligation of 
Massachusetts courts to provide reasonable accommodations to 
litigants with disabilities," Adjartey v. Central Div. of the 
Hous. Court Dep't, 481 Mass. 830, 847 (2019), and we take this 
opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring access to 
justice for every resident of the Commonwealth. 
6 
 
 
 
 
Conclusion.  For the reasons discussed, Saipe's claims 
arising from the denial of requested disabilities accommodations 
in the Appeals Court and in the single justice session of this 
court are dismissed as moot.  The judgment of the Housing Court 
is affirmed.  To the extent Saipe's claims include a request for 
a further stay of execution, that request is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered. 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
Brian L. Saipe, pro se. 
Therese Quijano & Christelle J. Jean-Felix for the 
respondent.