Newsletter
Normal Wear Isn't Damage: Limits Placed on Security Deposit Reductions
January 16, 2026
Authors
Joel E. Antwi
Associate, Washington, D.C.
jantwi@goulstonstorrs.com+1 617 574 0585
Sydney Cramer
Associate, Boston
scramer@goulstonstorrs.com+1 617 574 0504
Mariana Korsunsky
Director, Boston
mkorsunsky@goulstonstorrs.com+1 617 574 3584
Kevin P. O'Flaherty
Of Counsel, Boston
koflaherty@goulstonstorrs.com+1 617 574 6413
Gary M. Ronan
Director, Boston
gronan@goulstonstorrs.com+1 617 574 3593
Salome Salia
Associate, Boston
ssalia@goulstonstorrs.com+1 617 574 0598
John F. White III
Associate, Boston
jwhite@goulstonstorrs.com+1 617 574 0576Related Expertise
In Peebles v. JRK Property Holdings, Inc., the Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) interpreted the Massachusetts security deposit statute, G.L. c. 186, §15B. Its ruling arose from two questions certified to the SJC by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts concerning the boundaries of deductions from residential security deposits and the lawfulness of a lease provision requiring tenants to have a unit professionally cleaned at move-out. The SJC answered both questions in favor of the tenants, ruling that ordinary deterioration from reasonable residential use cannot justify deductions and that mandatory professional cleaning clauses that effectively penalize tenants for normal use are unenforceable.
The plaintiffs, Branda Peebles and Joshua Berger, were former tenants in apartments owned and managed by the defendants. Defendants’ leases provided that if one of their apartments was not returned in “professionally cleaned” condition, they would apply deductions for painting, carpet cleaning, and cleaning or replacement of various other items, irrespective of how long the tenant had lived in the apartment. When Peebles and Berger vacated their units without hiring professional cleaning services, defendants deducted $115 from Peebles’s deposit for touch up paint and carpet cleaning and $52.40 from Berger’s deposit for an unpaid utility bill. The tenants subsequently filed a class action lawsuit, alleging that defendants had routinely deducted charges for reasonable wear and tear in violation of the security deposit statute, which provides that a lessor may make deductions for “a reasonable amount necessary to repair any damage caused to the dwelling unit . . ., reasonable wear and tear excluded.” The case was removed to federal court, where the judge certified the legal questions to the SJC.
Turning to the first question, the Court interpreted the term “reasonable wear and tear” which c. 186, §15B does not define. The Court reasoned that whether damage to a particular property is reasonable wear and tear within the meaning of G. L. c. 186, § 15B (4) (iii) is a fact-specific question that depends upon the circumstances, including the nature and cause of the damage, the deterioration to be expected as a result of reasonable use during the tenant’s occupancy, the condition of the property at the start of the lease, and the length of the occupancy. The Court held that a tenant’s reasonable use of a residence is expected to result in gradual deterioration that ultimately may require painting, carpet repair, or similar refurbishment, and security deposit deductions for repairs of such reasonable wear and tear violate G. L. c. 186, § 15B (4). Importantly, the Court noted that wear and tear, even severe wear and tear, can be reasonable after considering the length of the occupancy and the contemplated use of the premises.
Turning to the second question, the SJC held that the lease provision requiring tenants to leave the premises in a “professionally cleaned” condition was void and unenforceable. The provision as written permitted landlords to impermissibly deduct for repainting, carpet cleaning, and replacement that may stem solely from ordinary use.
The decision provides long-awaited clarification of what constitutes permissible deductions, holding that deductions for painting, carpet repair, and similar refurbishment violate the security deposit statute when such work addresses normal deterioration from reasonable use. The SJC also clarified that a lease provision that is used to circumvent the statutory exclusion for reasonable wear and tear may be void and unenforceable.
Related People
Related Insights
Perspective
Unlocking the Future of Build-To-Rent Housing at the Annual Build-to-Rent Forum (East)
March 28, 2024