Case update (Aug. 1, 2025): In Branda Peebles & another v. JRK Property Holdings, Inc. & others (SJC-13702), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) answered a certified question from the federal district court about what landlords can—and cannot—deduct from a tenant’s security deposit at move-out.
The questions the SJC was asked
A federal district court asked the SJC:
- “When a tenant vacates at the end of a lease, under what circumstances, if any, does charging for painting, carpet repair, or similar refurbishment constitute a deduction for ‘reasonable wear and tear’ in violation of G.L. c. 186, § 15B(4)?”
- “Does a lease provision requiring a tenant to have the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the lease—or to bear the cost of later repairs—violate that same law?”
The Court’s answers—plainly stated
1) Normal wear and tear is not deductible.
Under G.L. c. 186, § 15B(4)(iii), a landlord may keep security-deposit funds only for unpaid rent or damage beyond normal wear and tear. The Court emphasized that reasonable residential use causes gradual deterioration—think scuffed walls, worn carpet, or faded paint—and landlords cannot charge a security deposit to “refresh” those items.
2) “Professional cleaning” clauses that force deductions are void.
A lease clause that automatically requires professional cleaning or imposes preset cleaning/repair charges regardless of whether the condition is merely normal wear and tear conflicts with § 15B and is void and unenforceable under § 15B(8). You can’t contract around the statute.
How judges decide what is “wear and tear”
The SJC said this is a fact-specific determination. Courts will look at:
- Nature and cause of the condition (ordinary use vs. abuse/neglect);
- Expected deterioration from reasonable residential use during the tenancy;
- Move-in condition of the property (photos and the statement of condition matter);
- Length of the tenancy (more time = more expected wear).
Rule of thumb: If it’s the predictable by-product of living in the unit, it’s wear and tear. If it’s excessive, negligent, or intentional damage, it’s deductible.
Practical examples
- Typically NOT deductible (wear & tear): Scuff marks from furniture, lightly worn carpet traffic lanes, sun-faded paint, a few nail holes that reasonably match normal picture-hanging.
- Often deductible (damage): Large wall holes, pet-torn carpet, burns, broken fixtures, unauthorized paint requiring full prime-and-paint, or deep stains requiring replacement.
Guidance for landlords
- Document everything at move-in and move-out: time-stamped photos/videos, the Statement of Condition, and signed checklists.
- Itemize properly and return the deposit within the statutory deadline (30 days after the tenancy ends), including a detailed list and receipts/estimates for any damage beyond wear and tear.
- Fix your lease forms: Remove any clause that automatically imposes professional cleaning or preset “refresh” charges irrespective of wear and tear.
- Train your team: Make sure property managers know the difference between refresh costs and true damage.
Risk of getting it wrong: Mishandling a security deposit can expose a landlord to treble (triple) damages, court costs, and attorney’s fees—and can derail an otherwise clean turnover or sale.
Guidance for tenants
- Photograph move-in and move-out and keep copies of the Statement of Condition and any repair receipts.
- Ask for itemization if the landlord proposes deductions; compare against your documentation.
- Push back on illegal charges, especially any “professional cleaning” or cookie-cutter refresh list that doesn’t explain damage beyond wear and tear.
- Act promptly: Security deposit claims are time-sensitive—don’t wait to seek advice.
What this decision does not do
- It does not give tenants a free pass for damage. If the condition exceeds what’s expected from reasonable use, deductions are allowed.
- It does not prohibit all cleaning expectations. Landlords can require tenants to leave the unit broom-clean—they just can’t use the deposit to fund routine refreshes that fall under wear and tear or enforce automatic “professional cleaning” deductions without case-specific proof of damage.
Bottom line
- Landlords: Treat the security deposit as a narrow remedy for unpaid rent or actual damage beyond wear and tear. Update your leases and move-out policies now.
- Tenants: Document, document, document—and challenge deductions that look like routine refresh costs.
If you’re facing a security-deposit dispute—or you want your lease and turnover process reviewed in light of Peebles v. JRK Property Holdings—Cote Law Group can help. Contact us for a quick assessment and a plan.
This post is for educational purposes only and is not a substitute for legal advice. Every situation is fact-specific. To get advice tailored to your facts, please speak directly with one of our attorneys.