Massachusetts landlords face some of the most tenant-friendly laws in the country, and a new Appeals Court decision just made things even tougher. In Campbell v. Abdulla (2025), the court ruled that tenants can raise retaliation as a defense in all eviction cases—not just for nonpayment of rent or no-fault terminations.
If you own rental property in Massachusetts, this ruling is worth your attention. It underscores the importance of timing, documentation, and strategy when pursuing eviction.
Background of the Case
The tenant, Tanya Coffey, had lived in her Haverhill apartment for years. In 2022, she began noticing signs of rodents in the unit. After notifying her landlord without results, she reported the problem to the Haverhill Board of Health. An inspection confirmed rodent activity and other violations, and the Board issued a notice of violations.
Just one month later, the landlord served Coffey and her family with a notice to quit for cause, citing lease violations.
At trial, the Housing Court judge acknowledged that Coffey’s retaliation defense was “facially viable,” but ruled it wasn’t available because the eviction was for cause, not for nonpayment or a no-fault termination. The judge awarded the landlord possession.
On appeal, the Massachusetts Appeals Court saw it differently.
The Appeals Court’s Decision
The Appeals Court vacated the judgment, holding that the retaliation defense under G. L. c. 239, § 2A applies to all summary process cases, including for-cause evictions.
Here’s why:
- Statutory Protection Is Broad. Massachusetts law creates a presumption of retaliation if a landlord moves to evict a tenant within six months of the tenant filing a health or safety complaint (see G. L. c. 186, § 18; G. L. c. 239, § 2A).
- Housing Court Got It Wrong. The trial judge believed retaliation defenses were limited by G. L. c. 239, § 8A, which specifically references nonpayment and no-fault cases. But the Appeals Court clarified that § 8A is not the exclusive source of defenses—retaliation under § 2A stands on its own.
- Burden on Landlord. Once the presumption arises, the landlord must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the eviction was not retaliatory and would have occurred at the same time regardless of the tenant’s complaint.
In Coffey’s case, because the notice to quit came only a month after her Board of Health complaint, the presumption of retaliation was triggered. The case has been sent back to the Housing Court for further proceedings.
What This Means for Massachusetts Landlords
This decision reinforces something every landlord should understand: timing matters. If you serve a notice to quit within six months of a tenant reporting code violations or asserting rights, the court will likely presume retaliation.
For landlords, this means:
- Document Everything. If you are pursuing eviction for cause, keep thorough records of lease violations, communications, and attempts to resolve issues.
- Be Careful With Timing. Even legitimate evictions can be derailed if they closely follow a tenant complaint.
- Expect a Higher Burden. Courts will require strong, clear, and convincing evidence that the eviction is justified on independent grounds.
- Get Legal Advice Before Acting. Retaliation defenses can turn an otherwise straightforward eviction into a costly, drawn-out process.
Final Thoughts
The Campbell v. Abdulla decision is a reminder that Massachusetts law heavily protects tenants who report health and safety concerns. For landlords, the best defense is preparation: solid documentation, strategic timing, and legal guidance before filing eviction.
At Cote Law Group, we represent landlords across Massachusetts and help them navigate these complex rules. If you are considering eviction or facing tenant retaliation claims, reach out to discuss your options.
Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. For advice about your specific situation, please contact our office directly.