12
meritorious defense to the eviction. This means that a tenant with meritorious eviction defenses may be
denied the opportunity to advance them if, in a judge’s discretion, they did not have “good cause” for
failing to appear. Conversely, if a judge finds that a tenant has “good cause” for failing to appear but the
tenant is unaware of, or unable to articulate, their defenses, as is common for litigants unfamiliar with
summary process laws, they may still be denied the removal of default.
If a tenant fails to file a motion within the 10-day period allowed for filing a Motion to Remove Default
and is still in the unit, they will also need to seek a stay of levy of the execution to prevent the landlord
from moving them out before the Court can hear the motion.
Although the parties may choose to enter into an agreement following the entry of a default – either
before or after the judgment enters – landlords often have very little incentive to do so, since the tenant
has the sole burden for removing the default and the landlord has, or will soon have, the ability to
regain possession of the unit without incurring the time or expense of litigating the case.
Default Project case outcome findings
The Default Project review consisted of analyzing MassCourts case records for each of the 621 cases
recorded in March 2019 and noting the activity following the entry of the initial default.
Agreements between the landlord and tenant were reached in about 152 of the 621 cases, or 24%, most
of which required the tenant to move out. A small number of the case records, 30 of the 621, indicate
that the case was either dismissed, proceeded to further litigation, or were inconclusive. We further
analyzed two separate categories of cases: 1) outcomes of cases where tenants filed a motion to remove
the default and the outcomes, and 2) outcomes of cases where tenants reached an agreement with
their landlords. Our analysis found that tenants still lost possession in both circumstances.
1. Tenants who filed a Motion to Remove Default
Less than 20% of tenants who defaulted filed a Motion to Remove Default. Only 1/3 of those
tenants who filed a Motion to Remove Default were successful.
Tenants filed a Motion to Remove Default in only 118 of the 621, or 19%, of cases identified. Of
those, only about 34% of the 118 cases where a motion was filed resulted in a removal of the
default, either by the Court allowing the Motion or by the parties reaching an agreement in
which the default was removed.
2. Tenants who reached Agreements following the default.
About 1/4 of the cases where tenants were defaulted resulted in Agreements. Over half of
those cases resulted in the tenant losing possession.
Regardless of whether a Motion to Remove Default was filed, 152 of the 621 cases, or 24%,
resulted in some form of agreement following the initial default. These agreements were
reviewed to determine whether the terms addressed the tenant’s possession of the unit.
Tenants agreed to vacate their units in 60 of the 152 agreements (40%). Of the remaining 92
agreements, the overwhelming majority included terms allowing the landlord to regain