Title: Phillips v. Equity Residential Management, LLC

State: massachusetts

Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12247 
 
SCOTT PHILLIPS1  vs.  EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, L.L.C. 
 
 
 
Suffolk.     May 1, 2017. - October 25, 2017. 
 
Present:  Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, 
& Cypher, JJ.2 
 
 
Landlord and Tenant, Security deposit, Multiple damages.  
Statute, Construction. 
 
 
 
 
Certification of a question of law to the Supreme Judicial 
Court by the United States Court of Appeals for the First 
Circuit. 
 
 
 
Joshua N. Garick (David Pastor & Preston W. Leonard also 
present) for the plaintiff. 
 
Craig M. White, of Illinois (Thomas H. Wintner also 
present) for the defendant. 
 
The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: 
 
Jeffrey J. Pokorak, Catherine Dowie, & John Pierce Wilton 
for Accelerator-to-Practice Program of Suffolk University Law 
School & others. 
 
Lawrence J. Farber for Greater Boston Real Estate Board. 
 
Alex Mitchell-Munevar & Joseph Michalakes for City 
Life/Vida Urbana. 
                     
 
1 Individually and on behalf of all others similarly 
situated. 
 
 
2 Justice Hines participated in the deliberation on this 
case prior to her retirement. 
2 
 
 
BUDD, J.  Where a landlord's itemized list of deductions 
from a tenant's security deposit does not comply with the 
requirements of the Security Deposit Act, G. L. c. 186, § 15B 
(act), the landlord forfeits the right to retain any part of 
that deposit.  See G. L. c. 186, § 15B (6).  In certain 
circumstances the landlord must pay the tenant treble damages, 
interest, costs, and attorney's fees, pursuant to § 15B (7).  In 
a certified question, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
First Circuit asks whether a tenant is entitled to treble the 
amount of the entire security deposit under § 15B (7) where a 
landlord fails to provide to the tenant a statement of damages 
that meets the statutory requirements, see § 15B (4) (iii), 
second sentence, thereby forfeiting the entire security deposit, 
see § 15B (6) (b), and also fails to return that forfeited 
deposit within thirty days after the termination of the tenancy.  
See Phillips v. Equity Residential Mgt., L.L.C., 844 F.3d 1, 7-8 
(1st Cir. 2016). 
 
We conclude that the Legislature did not intend for the 
treble damages provision in § 15B (7) to apply to a landlord's 
violation of the requirements for an itemized list set out in 
§ 15B (4) (iii), second sentence, or to the amount forfeited for 
violation of § 15B (6) (b), and accordingly answer the certified 
3 
 
question no.3 
 
Background.  We recite relevant facts presented by the 
Court of Appeals in its opinion, see Phillips, 844 F.3d at 3-4, 
along with other facts found by the District Court judge.  See 
Ferri v. Powell-Ferri, 476 Mass. 651, 652 (2017). 
 
Scott Phillips (tenant or Phillips) and a friend4 entered 
into a written lease with Equity Residential Management, L.L.C. 
(landlord or Equity), for an apartment in Waltham, for a term of 
from July 20, 2012, to May 19, 2013.  Phillips paid a security 
deposit of $750 before moving into the apartment.  He moved out 
of the apartment on May 20, 2013, and requested the return of 
his deposit.  Equity responded with a statement of deposit 
account (statement), which was signed but not sworn to under 
pains and penalties of perjury, within thirty days of 
termination of occupancy.  The statement listed charges totaling 
$968.08 and stated that Phillips owed a balance of $218.02 after 
                     
 
3 We acknowledge the amicus briefs of the Accelerator-to-
Practice Program of Suffolk University Law School, the Poverty 
Law and Practice Clinic of Northeastern University School of 
Law, and the Human Rights at Home Clinic and Justice Bridge 
Legal Center of the University of Massachusetts School of Law; 
the Greater Boston Real Estate Board; and City Life/Vida Urbana. 
 
 
4 The friend later assigned his rights in the lease to a 
third party, who vacated the apartment early.  By the end of the 
tenancy, Scott Phillips was the only tenant remaining in the 
apartment. 
4 
 
subtracting the security deposit and accumulated interest.5  On 
June 23, 2013, Phillips's father, a guarantor of the lease, 
notified Equity that the statement did not comply with several 
requirements of the act. 
 
On August 6, 2013, Phillips filed a class action6 complaint 
in the Superior Court, alleging that Equity had violated the act 
insofar as (1) the statement and attached document were not 
properly signed and sworn to under the pains and penalties of 
perjury, (2) Equity did not provide sufficient documentation to 
support the charges that were deducted from the deposit, (3) 
Equity impermissibly deducted cleaning charges from the deposit, 
and (4) Equity failed to return the deposit within thirty days 
after the termination of the tenancy.  He sought recovery under 
§ 15B (7), which provides, inter alia, for treble damages for 
                     
 
5 The statement of deposit account (statement) listed the 
following charges:  unpaid rent ($275.42), a late payment fee 
($8.65), an apartment cleaning charge ($74), a carpet cleaning 
charge ($65), a replacement drip pan ($15), and a carpet 
replacement charge ($530.01).  The statement credited Phillips's 
security deposit and interest ($0.06) against the total charges. 
 
 
6 Phillips sought to certify a class of all former tenants 
of Equity Residential Management, L.L.C. (landlord or Equity), 
who had vacated their rental units and "had any portion of their 
security deposit retained by [Equity] and not returned to them 
within [thirty] days after the termination of their occupancy or 
the end of their tenancy, during the period from August 6, 
2009[,] through the date of judgment."  Within this class were 
two proposed subclasses based on Equity's failure to send a 
properly sworn itemized list of damages, and Equity's deduction 
of cleaning charges from the security deposit.  The District 
Court judge ruled against Phillips on his class certification 
motion; that ruling is not before us. 
5 
 
certain violations of the act.  Equity removed the case to the 
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 
see 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), citing diversity of citizenship under 
the Federal Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.  See 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1332(d).  Equity also filed a counterclaim against Phillips 
for the remaining balance listed on the statement:  $218.02. 
 
In 2015, the District Court ruled on both parties' motions 
for summary judgment.7  The District Court found that Equity's 
statement did not comply with the itemized deduction provision 
in the act, see § 15B (4) (iii), second sentence, and therefore 
Equity had forfeited its right to retain any part of the deposit 
under § 15B (6) (b).  As a result, Phillips was entitled to 
recover his security deposit.  However, the District Court judge 
also ruled that Phillips was not entitled to treble damages, as 
she concluded that the Legislature had excluded violations of 
the itemized deduction provision from the types of violations 
that qualified for treble damages under § 15B (7).  Finally, the 
judge ruled that Equity was entitled to no more than $102.42 for 
holdover rent,8 because it had forfeited its right to 
counterclaim for damage to the premises by violating the act, 
see § 15B (6), and could not make deductions for a late payment 
                     
 
7 See Phillips vs. Equity Residential Mgmt., L.L.C., U.S. 
Dist. Ct., No. 13-1292-RWZ (D. Mass. Dec. 14, 2015). 
 
 
8 Phillips stayed one day past the end of the rental period 
defined in the written lease. 
6 
 
or earlier costs in an unrelated proceeding under § 15B (4). 
 
Phillips appealed from the ruling, arguing that the 
District Court misinterpreted the act, and that he was entitled 
to recover treble the amount of the entire security deposit 
under § 15B (7).  Concluding that there was no controlling 
precedent to decide the question, the Court of Appeals certified 
the following question to this court, pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 
1:03, as appearing in 382 Mass. 700 (1981): 
"With respect to the Massachusetts Security Deposit Law, 
[G. L. c.] 186, § 15B, when a lessor violates the [itemized 
list requirements] of [§ 15B (4) (iii)], does the lessor's 
corresponding violation of [§ 15B (6) (b)], which 
'forfeit[s] his right to retain any portion of the security 
deposit for any reason,' id. [at § 15B (6)], also 
constitute a violation of [§ 15B (6) (e)] -- 'fail[ing] to 
return to the tenant the security deposit or balance 
thereof to which the tenant is entitled . . . within thirty 
days after the termination of the tenancy' -- thereby 
triggering the statute's treble damages provision, 
[§ 15B (7)]?" 
 
Phillips, 844 F.3d at 7-8. 
 
 
Discussion.  The act, G. L. c. 186, § 15B, protects tenants 
by providing clear guidelines for landlords to follow with 
regard to handling security deposits.  See Hampshire Village 
Assocs. v. District Court of Hampshire, 381 Mass. 148, 151-153, 
cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1062 (1980).  In passing the act, the 
Legislature recognized that tenants have less bargaining power 
than landlords and are less able to vindicate their rights in 
court.  See Mellor v. Berman, 390 Mass. 275, 282 (1983), quoting 
7 
 
Goes v. Feldman, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 84, 91 (1979). 
 
The act provides, inter alia, that a landlord must take 
care in making deductions from a tenant's security deposit.  The 
deductions must fall into specifically authorized categories, 
which the act limits to unpaid rent or water charges, certain 
unpaid increases in real estate taxes, and repairs for damages 
caused by the tenant; any remaining balance must be returned to 
the tenant within thirty days of termination of the tenancy.  
See G. L. c. 186, § 15B (4) (i), (ii), (iii), first sentence.9  
Taking improper deductions from a tenant's security deposit 
leads to forfeiture of the entire security deposit, pursuant to 
                     
 
9 General Laws c. 186, § 15B (4), provides in relevant part: 
 
 
"(4) The lessor shall, within thirty days after the 
termination [of the tenancy], return to the tenant the 
security deposit or any balance thereof; provided, however, 
that the lessor may deduct from such security deposit for 
the following: 
 
 
"(i) any unpaid rent or water charges which have not 
been validly withheld or deducted pursuant to any general 
or special law[;] 
 
 
"(ii) any unpaid increase in real estate taxes which 
the tenant is obligated to pay pursuant to a tax escalation 
clause which conforms to the requirements of [§ 15C]; and 
 
 
"(iii) a reasonable amount necessary to repair any 
damage caused to the dwelling unit by the tenant or any 
person under the tenant's control or on the premises with 
the tenant's consent, reasonable wear and tear 
excluded. . . . 
 
 
"No deduction may be made from the security deposit 
for any purpose other than those set forth in this 
section." 
8 
 
§ 15B (6) (e).10  In addition, when making deductions for 
damages, the landlord must provide the tenant with an itemized 
list, sworn to under the pains and penalties of perjury, as well 
as written evidence of the cost of repairs.  See G. L. c. 186, 
§ 15B (4) (iii), second sentence.11  Violations of this second 
obligation, like violations of the first, also lead to 
forfeiture of the entire security deposit, pursuant to § 15B (6) 
(b).12  There are some violations of the act, including the 
                     
 
10 General Laws c. 186, § 15B (6) (e), provides: 
 
 
"(6) The lessor shall forfeit his right to retain any 
portion of the security deposit for any reason, or, in any 
action by a tenant to recover a security deposit, to 
counterclaim for any damage to the premises if he: 
 
 
". . . 
 
 
"(e) fails to return to the tenant the security 
deposit or balance thereof to which the tenant is entitled 
after deducting therefrom any sums in accordance with the 
provisions of this section, together with any interest 
thereon, within thirty days after termination of the 
tenancy." 
 
 
11 The second sentence of G. L. c. 186, § 15B (4) (iii), 
provides:  "In the case of such damage, the lessor shall provide 
to the tenant within such thirty days an itemized list of 
damages, sworn to by the lessor or his agent under pains and 
penalties of perjury, itemizing in precise detail the nature of 
the damage and of the repairs necessary to correct such damage, 
and written evidence, such as estimates, bills, invoices or 
receipts, indicating the actual or estimated cost thereof." 
 
 
12 General Laws c. 186, § 15B (6) (b), provides: 
 
 
"(6) The lessor shall forfeit his right to retain any 
portion of the security deposit for any reason, or, in any 
9 
 
taking of improper deductions in violation of § 15B [6] [e], 
that result in the tenant being entitled to treble damages, 
interest, court costs, and attorney's fees.  See G. L. c. 186, 
§ 15B (7).13 
 
In this case, as previously recounted, the landlord made 
deductions for unpaid rent and damage to the property that 
exceeded the value of the tenant's security deposit; thus, the 
landlord did not return any portion of the security deposit 
within thirty days.  The District Court judge found that 
although the landlord sent an itemized list of damages to 
Phillips within thirty days, this list was faulty because it was 
not sworn to under pains and penalties of perjury, was not 
sufficiently detailed, and was unsupported by written evidence 
of the costs of repairs.  These failings qualify as a violation 
by the landlord of § 15B (6) (b), and accordingly result in the 
                                                                  
action by a tenant to recover a security deposit, to 
counterclaim for any damage to the premises if he: 
 
 
". . . 
 
 
"(b) fails to furnish to the tenant within thirty days 
after the termination of the occupancy the itemized list of 
damages, if any, in compliance with the provisions of this 
section." 
 
 
13 General Laws c. 186, § 15B (7), provides:  "If the lessor 
or his agent fails to comply with clauses (a), (d), or (e) of 
subsection 6, the tenant shall be awarded damages in an amount 
equal to three times the amount of such security deposit or 
balance thereof to which the tenant is entitled plus interest at 
the rate of five per cent from the date when such payment became 
due, together with court costs and reasonable attorney's fees." 
10 
 
forfeiture of its right to retain any portion of Phillips's 
security deposit under § 15B (6).14 
 
Phillips argues that because the landlord forfeited the 
entire security deposit under § 15B (6) (b) by providing a 
faulty list, it was required to return the entire security 
deposit within thirty days of termination of the tenancy.  The 
crux of the case is that Phillips further argues that the 
landlord's failure in this regard triggered a violation of 
§ 15B (6) (e), which, in his view, calls for damages in the 
amount of three times the entire security deposit as well as 
other awards pursuant to § 15B (7).  The landlord disagrees, 
arguing that the tenant's interpretation would make 
§ 15B (6) (b) redundant and would overlook the Legislature's 
intent to limit the number of § 15B (6) violations that would 
give rise to treble damages and other penalties under § 15B (7).  
The question certified by the Court of Appeals asks us for the 
correct interpretation. 
 
Our answer turns on an interpretation of § 15B (6) (e), and 
whether that provision covers a landlord's failure to return the 
security deposit forfeited under other clauses of § 15B (6) 
within thirty days of the termination of the tenancy.  For the 
                     
 
14 To the extent that any charges by the landlord did not 
fall into any category of deduction authorized by § 15B (4), 
Phillips would also be entitled to treble damages on the amounts 
wrongfully withheld for those charges. 
11 
 
reasons we discuss below, we answer the certified question no. 
 
1.  Rules of statutory interpretation.15  As the question 
turns on a matter of statutory interpretation, we begin with the 
text of the statute.  International Fid. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 387 
Mass. 841, 853 (1983).  "[A] statute must be interpreted 
according to the intent of the Legislature ascertained from all 
its words construed by the ordinary and approved usage of the 
language, considered in connection with the cause of its 
enactment, the mischief or imperfection to be remedied and the 
main object to be accomplished, to the end that the purpose of 
its framers may be effectuated."  Board of Educ. v. Assessor of 
Worcester, 368 Mass. 511, 513 (1975), quoting Industrial Fin. 
Corp. v. State Tax Comm'n, 367 Mass. 360, 364 (1975).  Where the 
text of the statute is clear and unambiguous, we must apply its 
ordinary meaning.  Bronstein v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 390 
Mass. 701, 704 (1984), citing Hashimi v. Kalil, 388 Mass. 607, 
610 (1983).  "But we look to the language of the entire statute, 
not just a single sentence, and attempt to interpret all of its 
terms 'harmoniously to effectuate the intent of the 
                     
 
15 Phillips focuses on the text of § 15B (6) (e) alone, 
arguing that we must interpret it strictly.  However, we have 
never stated that a single clause of a statute must be construed 
strictly in total isolation and without regard to adjacent 
clauses and subsections, and certainly not where, as here, the 
clause itself references the rest of the act.  See Commonwealth 
v. Hanson H., 464 Mass. 807, 810 (2013), quoting Commonwealth v. 
Raposo, 453 Mass. 739, 745 (2009).  See also G. L. c. § 15B (6) 
(e) ("in accordance with the provisions of this section"). 
12 
 
Legislature.'"  Commonwealth v. Hanson H., 464 Mass. 807, 810 
(2013), quoting Commonwealth v. Raposo, 453 Mass. 739, 745 
(2009).  Further, although "matters of punctuation are not 
necessarily determinative," Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston 
Retirement Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 432 (1983), punctuation "may be 
considered as an indication of the purpose of the legislation 
where different readings might result in ambiguity."  Taylor v. 
Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77, 81 (2007), citing Greenough v. 
Phoenix Ins. Co., 206 Mass. 247, 252 (1910) (interpreting 
importance of comma and grammatical construction in G. L. 
c. 186, § 15B [3] [a]).  Finally, so long as it yields a 
"logical and sensible result," we do not interpret a statute so 
as to render any portion of it meaningless.  Adamowicz v. 
Ipswich, 395 Mass. 757, 760 (1985), quoting Lexington v. 
Bedford, 378 Mass. 562, 570 (1979). 
 
2.  Interpretation of § 15B (6) (e).  Section 15B (6) (e) 
requires a landlord to forfeit the entire security deposit if 
the landlord "fails to return to the tenant the security deposit 
or balance thereof to which the tenant is entitled after 
deducting therefrom any sums in accordance with the provisions 
of this section" (emphasis added).  Phillips considers the 
"balance . . . to which the tenant is entitled" to be the entire 
forfeited security deposit rather than the security deposit less 
any proper deductions.  He argues that the entire security 
13 
 
deposit amount must be trebled under § 15B (7) because the 
landlord violated § 15B (6) (e) by failing to return the 
forfeited deposit within thirty days of the end of the tenancy. 
 
We conclude, however, that § 15B (6) (e) cannot be 
triggered by failing to return the amount forfeited under other 
subsections of § 15B (6).  This means that the landlord must pay 
treble damages only on the amount that the landlord improperly 
deducted under § 15B (4) (i), (ii), and (iii), first sentence.16  
Thus, the landlord is not otherwise automatically liable for 
treble damages on the entire security deposit.  Any other 
interpretation of this provision would ignore the context and 
placement of § 15B (6) (e) within the statute.  See Castenholz 
v. Caira, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 758, 760-764 (1986) (analyzing 
differences between obligations under § 15B [3] [a] and [6] [a] 
to determine which acts by landlord justified treble damages 
under § 15B [7]).  In fact, three aspects of § 15B indicate that 
a landlord's failure properly to document the deductions does 
not lead to a violation of § 15B (6) (e).17 
                     
 
16 The failure to include an itemized list of damages under 
§ 15B (6) (b) does not fall within § 15B (7); therefore, 
although it triggers forfeiture of the right to retain any 
portion of the security deposit, it does not result in treble 
damages. 
 
 
17 Phillips also appears to argue that § 15B (6) (e) covers 
documentation violations because it provides that a landlord 
must return the security deposit, "deducting therefrom any sums 
in accordance with the provisions of this section."  As 
14 
 
 
First,  § 15B (7) imposes treble damages only on violations 
of § 15B (6) (a), (d), and (e), rather than on all violations of 
§ 15B (6).  This implies that the Legislature intentionally 
omitted documentary violations from treble damages.  See 
Castenholz, 21 Mass. App. Ct. at 761-762.18  See also Brady v. 
Brady, 380 Mass. 480, 484 (1980), quoting Harborview Residents' 
Comm., Inc. v. Quincy Hous. Auth., 368 Mass. 425, 432 (1975) ("a 
statutory expression of one thing is an implied exclusion of 
other things omitted from the statute").19 
                                                                  
discussed above, § 15B (6) (e) covers only portions of the 
security deposit that were wrongfully withheld.  To conclude 
that this language also covers documentation violations would be 
to ignore the context of the statute.  A broad reading of 
§ 15B (6) (e) to cover documentation violations would make § 15B 
(6) (b) completely redundant, as § 15B (6) (b) exists only to 
provide for forfeiture of the deposit for documentation 
violations.  See Adamowicz v. Ipswich, 395 Mass. 757, 760 (1985) 
(we do not read statute to render provision wholly meaningless). 
 
 
18 In Castenholz v. Caira, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 758, 761-762 
(1986), the Appeals Court explained that violations of § 15B (6) 
(a), (d), and (e) "involve a failure by the landlord to comply 
with his duties in handling the tenant's security deposit 
money," whereas § 15B (6) (b) and (c) "do not involve 
mishandling of the tenant's deposit money and do not expose the 
landlord to the possibility of treble damages but only entitle 
the tenant to a return of the deposit."  Thus, it is fair to say 
that the omission of § 15B (6) (b) from treble damages was not 
due to oversight but was intentional, as this type of misconduct 
may cause less harm. 
 
 
19 Phillips urges that this maxim of statutory construction, 
also known as "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," is rarely 
used and does not pertain to this case.  We have previously 
applied this maxim with caution, as it "is not a rule of law but 
an aid to interpretation, and it should not be applied where to 
do so would frustrate the general beneficial purposes of the 
15 
 
 
Second, § 15B (6) (e) requires the landlord to return the 
amount to which the tenant is entitled within thirty days of the 
termination of the tenancy, whereas § 15B (6) (b) requires the 
landlord to provide the tenant with proper documentation within 
thirty days as well.  This means that, under the tenant's 
interpretation, a landlord who made authorized deductions for 
damages but returned a deficient itemized list on the thirtieth 
day would automatically be liable for treble damages because 
there would be no time left to return the forfeited amount. 
 
Third, Phillips's proposed interpretation of § 15B (6) (e) 
-- i.e., that it is triggered when a landlord fails to return 
the forfeited amount within thirty days of termination of the 
tenancy -- overlooks the placement of § 15B (6) (e) within the 
statute.  The Legislature placed the forfeiture provision in the 
main clause of § 15B (6), rather than within the individual 
subsections.  Because both § 15B (6) (b) and (e) are parallel 
clauses that can both trigger forfeiture of the security 
deposit, it does not make sense for one to trigger the other.  
More fundamentally, Phillips's argument would mean that 
                                                                  
legislation . . . or if its application would lead to an 
illogical result" (citations omitted).  Bank of Am., N.A. v. 
Rosa, 466 Mass. 613, 619-620 (2013).  However, where absurd 
results do not occur, and where the maxim furthers the 
legislative purpose, it is still relevant and useful, 
particularly where it corroborates a reasonable interpretation.  
See, e.g., Skawski v. Greenfield Investors Prop. Dev. LLC, 473 
Mass. 580, 588 (2016). 
16 
 
forfeiture under any provision of § 15B (6) could trigger a 
violation of § 15B (6) (e).  Taken to its logical conclusion, 
this would mean that every time a landlord violated 
§ 15B (6) (e) by improperly withholding a portion of the 
security deposit the landlord could simultaneously trigger a 
second violation of § 15B (6) (e) because he had forfeited the 
rest of the security deposit and failed to return the balance 
within thirty days.  This is nonsensical, as a landlord who 
returned the deposit on the thirtieth day and made proper 
deductions for unpaid rent, but also withheld ten dollars for a 
cleaning charge, would be liable for treble damages not only on 
the cleaning charge but also automatically for the failure to 
return the amount that was properly deducted but forfeited 
within thirty days.  See Castenholz, 21 Mass. App. Ct. at 762 
(declining to construe § 15B as "a minefield of potential 
multiple penalties"). 
 
Thus, the context provided by the rest of § 15B 
demonstrates that it would not make sense for § 15B (6) (e) to 
apply to the amount forfeited by other provisions of § 15B (6). 
 
As the concurrence notes, the act does not go as far as it 
might with regard to holding landlords responsible.  Our job, 
however, is to interpret the statute as written and in 
accordance with our previous cases.  See Mellor, 390 Mass. at 
277 (trebling solely difference in damages between what landlord 
17 
 
charged and what was attributable to tenants); McGrath v. 
Mishara, 386 Mass. 74, 77, 79-80 (1982) (awarding multiple 
damages only on amount that "had been unlawfully withheld from 
the tenants' security deposit").  See also Hampshire Village 
Assocs., 381 Mass. at 148-149 (tenants were entitled to multiple 
damages where landlord failed to return any portion of security 
deposit or itemized list within thirty days). 
 
It is important to note that if Phillips were to prevail on 
the argument that the landlord made certain deductions that were 
not authorized by the statute -- such as the late payment fee, 
costs of unrelated litigation between the parties, and any 
cleaning or repair charges that were not fairly due to damages 
attributable to Phillips -- he would get treble damages, 
attorney's fees, and other penalties under § 15B (7) on those 
amounts.  See note 14, supra.  However, Phillips would not be 
entitled to treble damages on the remainder of the forfeited 
security deposit. 
 
Even apart from the remedies provided by § 15B, we note 
that similarly situated tenants have further recourse, as they 
may have rights under G. L. c. 93A, § 9, including to multiple 
damages where the landlord fails to return the forfeited amount 
or offer a settlement in response to a demand letter from the 
tenant.  See 940 Code Mass. Regs. § 3.17(4) (1993) (interpreting 
c. 93A to cover landlord's misconduct under § 15B); McGrath, 386 
18 
 
Mass. at 86-87 (affirming award of multiple damages under c. 93A 
in security deposit dispute). 
 
3.  Conclusion.  We conclude that a landlord violates 
§ 15B (6) (e) only where the landlord fails to return or account 
for any portion of the security deposit within thirty days, or 
where the landlord makes a deduction that does not fall within 
the categories authorized by § 15B (4) (i), (ii), (iii), first 
sentence.  A violation of § 15B (6) (e) does not apply to any 
portion of the security deposit that was forfeited under another 
provision of § 15B (6).20  As a result, our answer to the 
certified question is no. 
 
The Reporter of Decisions is to furnish attested copies of 
this opinion to the clerk of this court.  The clerk in turn will 
transmit one copy, under the seal of this court, to the clerk of 
the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, as the 
answer to the question certified, and will also transmit a copy 
to each party. 
 
                     
 
20 We further conclude that because § 15B (6) (e) and (7) 
use the same language to describe the amount owed to the tenant, 
where § 15B (7) is triggered by a violation of § 15B (6) (e), 
treble damages apply only to the amount that was improperly 
withheld to begin with, and not automatically to the entire 
amount that was forfeited by the main clause of § 15B (6). 
 
 
LENK, J. (concurring).  While I agree with the court's 
conclusion, I write separately to highlight the dichotomy 
between the remedial legislative purpose behind G. L. c. 186, 
§ 15B, and the outcome that the court is constrained to reach 
today. 
In enacting G. L. c. 186, § 15B, "the Legislature 
manifested a concern for the welfare of tenants in residential 
property who, as a practical matter, are generally in inferior 
bargaining positions" to landlords and "find traditional avenues 
of redress relatively useless."  See Hampshire Village Assocs. 
v. District Court of Hampshire, 381 Mass. 148, 152-153, cert. 
denied, 449 U.S. 1062 (1980), quoting Goes v. Feldman, 8 Mass. 
App. Ct. 84, 91 (1979).  This asymmetry of power stems from the 
"legal expense of chasing a security deposit," which often 
amounts to "more than the amount of the deposit."  Hampshire 
Village Assocs., supra at 153, quoting Goes, supra.  In light of 
this imbalance, the Legislature enacted G. L. c. 186, § 15B, "to 
make resort to litigation feasible for tenants" and thereby to 
"establish an equitable relationship between tenants and 
landlords" (quotations and citations omitted).  Castenholz v. 
Caira, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 758, 763 (1986). 
 
There is a considerable disparity between the evident 
legislative purpose and the plain language of the statutory 
provision at issue here.  One need look no further than Scott 
2 
 
Phillips's situation to perceive the difficulties this creates.  
Phillips first asked his landlord for the return of his security 
deposit on May 28, 2013.  As the court notes, the landlord 
violated its obligations under G. L. c. 186, § 15B (6) (b), by 
providing an insufficiently detailed list of damages unsupported 
by written evidence or a sworn affirmation, thereby forfeiting 
any right to the deposit by June 20, 2013.  See ante at    .  
After four years of litigation in Federal and State court, 
Phillips has yet to receive a cent of it.  Despite this, when 
all is said and done, he will likely walk away with only his 
$750 deposit for his troubles.  This is hardly the sort of 
"feasible" litigation that the Legislature contemplated when it 
enacted G. L. c. 186, § 15B. 
 
If this outcome is extrapolated to encompass tenants across 
the Commonwealth, what is at stake becomes even more clear.  
Without resource to the treble damages and attorney's fees 
available under G. L. c. 186, § 15B (7), tenants seeking the 
return of their security deposits due to violations of G. L. 
c. 186, § 15B (6) (b), are confronted with a Hobson's choice.  
They either can pursue expensive litigation which may cost them 
more than the amount of the deposit, or they can abandon any 
claim to what likely amounts to at least one month's additional 
rent, allowing the landlord to reap the unearned windfall.  Many 
3 
 
will of necessity choose the latter course.1 
 
This in turn may well embolden certain landlords to ignore 
their statutory obligations under G. L. c. 186, § 15B (6) (b).  
The Legislature established those obligations to "ha[ve] the 
effect of ensuring that landlords do not make spurious and 
unfounded deductions for damage."  See McGrath v. Mishara, 386 
Mass. 74, 80 (1982).  Without the specter of the treble damages 
and attorney's fees provided by G. L. c. 186, § 15B (7), 
unscrupulous landlords might well evade compliance with these 
requirements of § 15B (6) (b) in order to ensure that tenants 
lack the necessary information to challenge unfounded 
deductions.  This outcome does not resemble the "equitable" 
result that the Legislature intended when it enacted G. L. 
                     
 
1 I am not persuaded that seeking relief for G. L. c. 186, 
§ 15B (6) (b), violations pursuant to G. L. c. 93A, § 9, serves 
as a meaningful alternative to the swift remedy that might 
otherwise be provided by G. L. c. 186, § 15B (7).  Unlike the 
latter, G. L. c. 93A, § 9, imposes notice and timing 
requirements that may well be impediments to low income tenants, 
who often will be unrepresented by counsel.  See Jefferson, 
Liberty and Justice for Some:  How the Legal System Falls Short 
in Protecting Basic Rights, 88 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1953, 1960-1961 
(2013) (noting high percentage of pro se litigants involved in 
landlord-tenant disputes).  This stands in stark contrast to the 
sword of Damocles that G. L. c. 186, § 15B (7), hangs over 
landlords to ensure their compliance with the statutory 
requirements safeguarding tenants' security deposits.  The 
prospect of automatic forfeiture, treble damages, and attorney's 
fees for noncompliance is itself a means of redressing the 
bargaining disparity between landlord and tenant, and assists in 
the speedy return of such deposits where appropriate.  See 
Hampshire Village Assocs. v. District Court of Hampshire, 381 
Mass. 148, 152-153 (1980). 
4 
 
c. 186, § 15B.  See Castenholz, 21 Mass. App. Ct. at 763.  
Indeed, by leaving tenants with a right that is without a 
practical remedy, G. L. c. 186, § 15B (6) (b), permits precisely 
the sort of inequitable conduct that the penalties provided in 
G. L. c. 186, § 15B (7), were meant to deter. 
 
If this is not the result the Legislature intends, I urge 
it to consider amending the statute to ensure that landlords who 
unlawfully retain a security deposit forfeited pursuant to G. L. 
c. 186, § 15B (6) (b), suffer the penalties provided in G. L. 
c. 186, § 15B (7).