The owner of a mobile home park tried to sell the park to a developer but did not provide the tenants with proper forms notifying them in advance and allowing them to exercise their right of first refusal. A housing court judge dismissed their case against the developer. They appealed and the appeals court reversed.
This is a 93A case and I am concerned that this appeals court is going back on 93A recent cases and trying to say a violation of any legal right is 93A when the SJC had said on several occasions already that an actual injury separate from that violation of statute is required.
They are wrong on their interpretation on all 3 items under Discussion. This is not a proper plaintiff, the Buyer is not the owner/operator of the mobile home and there was no actual injury here. I put my life on hold every day for months waiting on a doctor’s test or the DMV or Health Insurance to decide this or that or a bank to issue me a new mortgage which in the end may or may not happen. That is not an injury.
In addition, I am concerned that the Attorney General of MA refuses to update their regulations to remove statements that a mere violation of a lease or this or that statute is 93A and bring it more in line with needing to have an actual injury in addition to such violation. Please write to the AG of MA.
Here is the case: