Perez v. Boston Housing Authority
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
379 Mass. 703 (1980)

- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Nine tenants (plaintiffs) lived in various developments of the Boston Housing Authority (BHA) (defendant). The tenants sued BHA, on behalf of themselves and all other tenants as a class, alleging that the housing provided by BHA was substandard. The tenants also alleged that the housing violated the sanitary code. The trial court agreed. After the initial injunctive remedies failed, the parties entered into a consent decree. The trial court rejected the tenants’ request to appoint a receiver at that stage and instead appointed a master to gather information and assist in developing plans. However, the BHA leadership, consisting of a five-member board, failed to take appropriate action to comply with the court’s orders and remedy the housing violations. The master submitted 26 notices of substantial noncompliance with the orders. The tenants requested the consent decree be vacated and repeated the request to have a receiver appointed. The trial court developed a lengthy record and ultimately determined that the failures of the BHA were due to a lack of willing and competent leadership. Therefore, after approximately five years of litigation, the trial court appointed a receiver for the BHA. The BHA appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kaplan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 821,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.