Tenant Rights | Corporate Landlords | Class Action

The Lease Clause That Stole Your Deposit

Reported by EvilCorporations.com  |  Source: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Peebles v. JRK Property Holdings, Inc. (2025)

A corporate landlord printed a lease addendum telling tenants that cleaning and painting charges “will be assessed regardless of how long a resident occupies the apartment” — and the highest court in Massachusetts just ruled that clause is illegal, void, and against public policy.

Your security deposit is yours. You paid it. It sits in an account with your name on it. But for years, JRK Property Holdings, Inc. and its affiliated property entities have been slipping a document into tenant leases that effectively rewrites that reality — turning your money into a cleaning fund for corporate-grade apartment turnover, regardless of what the law says.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court answered two certified legal questions in August 2025. Both answers landed squarely against the landlord. The court confirmed that normal, everyday deterioration from living in an apartment — scuffed walls, worn carpet, faded paint — is “reasonable wear and tear” that the law protects tenants from paying for. And the court confirmed that a lease clause designed to circumvent that protection is void and unenforceable.

This is not a technicality. This is a corporate landlord writing illegal terms into contracts signed by tenants who had no real choice but to sign them.

The Paper Trail: What the Landlord Actually Put in Writing

JRK Property Holdings, Inc. operates through subsidiary entities: Stevens Pond Apartments Property Owner, LLC and One Webster Apartments Property Owner, LLC. Every tenant who rented from these properties received a lease accompanied by a signed addendum titled “Move Out Cleaning & Replacement Charges.”

That addendum told tenants they were “required to have the apartment professionally cleaned and carpet cleaned upon move out.” If the apartment was not returned in that condition, a list of charges “will be applied.” Those charges covered painting per coat, touch-up paint, carpet cleaning, a full apartment clean, and an exhaustive line-item list of replacement and cleaning costs for nearly every surface and fixture in the apartment.

The addendum covered doors and frames, windows, walls, cabinets in both kitchen and bathroom, bathtubs, shower wall tile, mirrors, toilets, sinks, faucets, range tops, and refrigerators. For carpet replacement specifically, tenants were liable for the “actual cost” — no cap, no limit, no ceiling.

They Wrote “Regardless of How Long You Live Here” in Plain English

The addendum contained a line that the court cited directly as evidence of the scheme’s intent. It stated that the listed charges “will be assessed regardless of how long a resident occupies the apartment.” Under Massachusetts law, the length of occupancy is one of the key factors courts use to determine what counts as reasonable wear and tear. A tenant who lives somewhere for five years will reasonably leave more wear on a carpet than one who lives there for five months. The landlord’s addendum erased that distinction entirely.

This is a landlord telling a tenant: it does not matter how carefully you lived here, it does not matter how long you stayed, and it does not matter what the law says. You will pay for our turnover costs. That is the plain reading of that clause. And the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court agreed it was illegal.

That quote from the court’s opinion is the entire business model exposed in one sentence. Corporate landlords know most tenants will not sue over a $115 deduction. They count on it.

The Non-Financial Ledger: What This Actually Cost People

Branda Peebles moved out of her apartment and received a statement telling her $115 ($enough to feed a family of four for two weeks) had been deducted from her security deposit for “touch-up paint” and “carpet clean per lease.” She had not hired professional cleaners. She had simply lived there, the way tenants do — cooking, sleeping, walking across the floors, brushing against the walls in the hallway. And for that ordinary human act of inhabiting a space she paid rent for, the landlord took money that belonged to her.

The Massachusetts court cited the Legislature’s own reasoning: tenants are “generally in inferior bargaining positions,” and the “legal expense of chasing a security deposit would be more than the amount of the deposit.” Read that again. The system is designed so that the cost of fighting back exceeds the amount stolen. A $115 deduction is not a mistake — at that price point, it is a calculated bet that the tenant will absorb the loss and move on. Multiply that across hundreds or thousands of tenants in a corporate portfolio, and small thefts become enormous revenue.

Joshua Berger signed the same addendum. He read the same clause telling him his apartment had to be returned in “professionally cleaned” condition or charges would follow. He knew that the landlord reserved the right to bill him for every window, every cabinet, every mirror, every faucet regardless of how long he had lived there. That knowledge shapes how you live in a place. It turns your home into a liability you are constantly trying to manage. You walk carefully. You avoid cooking things that might stain. You second-guess every piece of furniture placement because of what moving it might scuff. That anxiety is not accidental; it is manufactured by a contract designed to make you feel like you owe the landlord something you do not.

The addendum’s line-item list of cleaning charges reads like an inventory of every room in a home reduced to its billable components. Doors and frames, each. Windows, each. Walls (wash), each. Shower wall tile. Mirrors, each. Toilet, each. Sink (kitchen/bath), each. Faucets (kitchen/bath), each. Range top. Refrigerator. The word “each” appears repeatedly — a pricing structure designed not to reflect actual damage, but to maximize the total charge. A landlord who counts every mirror and every faucet as a separate line item is not assessing damage. The landlord is building an invoice.

Length of occupancy matters enormously under the law — and the landlord knew it, which is why they wrote a clause explicitly overriding it. A tenant who lived in an apartment for three years will leave paint a little duller, carpet a little more compressed, walls a little more scuffed than when they arrived. That is not damage. That is what three years of human life looks like in a physical space. The law recognizes this. JRK’s addendum did not because JRK’s addendum was not written to protect tenants. It was written to bill them.

Legal Receipts: The Words They Cannot Take Back

The Court’s Finding on What Wear and Tear Actually Means

“A dwelling’s condition is expected to deteriorate over time as a tenant moves furniture in and out; cooks in the kitchen; bathes in the bathroom; relies on appliances with limited lifespans; and otherwise makes reasonable use of the property during the tenant’s occupancy under the terms of the lease, including simply by walking on the floors, beside the walls, and through the doorways, day after day. This ‘gradual deterioration’ from ordinary use is the wear and tear for which a tenant is not liable at common law.” — Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Peebles v. JRK Property Holdings, Inc. (2025)

The Law the Landlord Violated

“No deduction may be made from the security deposit for any purpose other than those set forth in this section.” — G. L. c. 186, § 15B (4), Massachusetts General Laws

What the Addendum Actually Said

“Resident is required to have the apartment professionally cleaned and carpet cleaned upon move out. If the apartment is not returned to us in this condition the following charges will be applied.” — JRK Property Holdings lease addendum, “Move Out Cleaning & Replacement Charges”

The Clause That Buried the Tenant’s Rights

“The following charges will be assessed regardless of how long [a] resident occupies the apartment.” — JRK Property Holdings lease addendum (emphasis added by court)

The Consequence: The Lease Clause Is Void

“Any provision of a lease which conflicts with any provision of this section . . . shall be deemed to be against public policy and therefore void and unenforceable.” — G. L. c. 186, § 15B (8), Massachusetts General Laws

Why the Legislature Built the Statute in the First Place

“The Legislature limited the freedom of landlords and tenants to contract out of concern for the welfare of tenants generally in inferior bargaining positions, for whom the legal expense of chasing a security deposit would be more than the amount of the deposit.” — Hampshire Village Assocs. v. District Court of Hampshire, 381 Mass. 148 (1980), cited by the court

Societal Impact Mapping

Economic Inequality: The Security Deposit as a Poverty Engine

Security deposits function as a wealth transfer mechanism that disproportionately punishes people with the least financial cushion. A renter who barely scraped together first month, last month, and a security deposit to move in has zero margin to absorb an illegal deduction at move-out. Corporate landlords with large apartment portfolios understand this arithmetic precisely. Each individual deduction is small enough to be practically unchallenged, but the aggregate across hundreds or thousands of units represents a substantial revenue stream extracted directly from the financial reserves of working-class and low-income tenants.

The court noted the Legislature’s explicit recognition that tenants are “generally in inferior bargaining positions.” That inferiority is structural. Tenants need housing immediately. Landlords can wait for the right tenant and dictate terms. An addendum handed to a tenant at signing — alongside a stack of move-in paperwork — is not a negotiation. It is a take-it-or-leave-it condition attached to shelter. When that addendum contains illegal clauses stripping tenant protections, tenants have no real choice but to sign away rights the Legislature specifically enacted to protect them.

The statutory remedy for landlords who use illegal lease provisions includes forfeiture of the right to retain any portion of the security deposit, plus potential triple damages under G. L. c. 186, § 15B (7). The plaintiffs in this case sought exactly that in their 2019 class-action complaint. But the mere existence of that remedy does not undo the years of harm. Tenants who could not afford an attorney absorbed their losses silently. The money is gone. The time to recover it has passed. The class action seeks accountability for a pattern of conduct that predated the lawsuit by an unknown number of years.

The named plaintiff Branda Peebles had $115 ($enough to cover a week of groceries for a family of three) taken from her deposit for touch-up paint and carpet cleaning — costs the court confirmed are classic reasonable wear and tear. That $115 represents real money to a renter. It is a utility bill. It is a prescription. It is a tank of gas to get to work. Corporate landlords do not feel $115. Their tenants do.

Public Health: The Hidden Cost of Forced “Professional Cleaning” Standards

The addendum required tenants to return apartments in “professionally cleaned” condition — a standard with no legal definition and no objective benchmark, set entirely by the landlord’s own assessment at move-out inspection. When a tenant cannot meet a subjectively enforced standard, the result is automatic deductions. That financial threat shapes tenant behavior during occupancy in ways that extend to physical and mental health. Tenants living under constant threat of punitive charges experience housing as a source of chronic stress rather than stability.

Housing instability is one of the most significant social determinants of health outcomes. Security deposit theft — and the threat of it built into lease language — accelerates instability by draining the financial reserves tenants need to move safely when a lease ends. A tenant who loses $115 or more at move-out has less buffer for the next deposit. The cycle compounds. The court’s ruling does not reach back to compensate every tenant who absorbed these costs quietly. It sets the law going forward, but the health consequences of years of financial extraction do not disappear with a court ruling.

The “Cost of a Life” Metric

What Now? The Resistance Roadmap

The Corporate Players Still in the Picture

• JRK Property Holdings, Inc. — the named corporate defendant; operates through subsidiary LLCs.
• Stevens Pond Apartments Property Owner, LLC — subsidiary property entity named in the suit.
• One Webster Apartments Property Owner, LLC — subsidiary property entity named in the suit.

The Watchlist: Who Has Jurisdiction to Act

• Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office — filed an amicus brief supporting tenants; has authority to investigate unfair and deceptive practices under G. L. c. 93A.
• Massachusetts Consumer Protection Division — G. L. c. 93A gives tenants a private right of action and can trigger AG-level enforcement.
• State Housing Courts — the venue where individual tenants can bring claims for illegal security deposit deductions right now, without waiting for the class action to resolve.
• Community Action Agency of Somerville and Friendly House, Inc. — both filed amicus briefs supporting tenants and are active tenant-side organizations in Massachusetts.

What You Can Do Today

If you were a tenant of JRK Property Holdings or its subsidiaries and had deductions taken from your security deposit for painting, carpet cleaning, or any item on their “Move Out Cleaning & Replacement Charges” addendum, document everything and contact a tenant rights organization. The statute of limitations matters — do not wait. Look up your local tenant union, contact the Massachusetts Attorney General’s consumer hotline, and connect with Community Action Agency of Somerville or similar organizations that litigate these cases on behalf of low-income tenants. Collective action is the reason this ruling exists. Two tenants filed this suit in 2019, and six years later the state’s highest court handed down a ruling that protects every renter in Massachusetts. Organize with your neighbors. Share this ruling. File your claim.