Waltham Overlook Apartments, LLC v. Akinyemi Arokodare.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: May 29, 2025
• Docket: 24-P-0541
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

24-P-541

WALTHAM OVERLOOK APARTMENTS, LLC

V.

AKINYEMI AROKODARE.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant, Akinyemi Arokodare, appeals from a Housing

Court summary process judgment entered in favor of the

plaintiff, Waltham Overlook Apartments, LLC. The defendant also

appeals from the denial of his motion to alter or amend the

judgment. We affirm.

Beginning in September of 2020, the defendant rented an

apartment owned by the plaintiff. The lease pertaining to that

rental required all occupants of the apartment to be named, and

adults eighteen years old and over to sign the lease. Only the

defendant signed the lease, and his two children were listed as

occupants. On June 22, 2023, the plaintiff notified the

defendant that his lease would not be renewed upon its expiration on September 10, 2023, due to chronic late payment of

rent. The defendant failed to vacate the premises and thus the

landlord served a notice to quit for cause, and subsequently

filed a summary process action in the District Court. The

defendant transferred the case to the Housing Court, and the

matter proceeded to trial on January 18, 2024. At trial, the

defendant did not dispute his "chronic nonpayment" of rent.

Instead, he argued that his "domestic partner," Rachel Musenge,

also occupied the premises as a tenant; that she was not named

in the notice to quit, summons, or complaint; and that the

failure to include her on the notice, summons, and complaint

constituted a "fatal error" in the eviction process. Following

trial, the judge issued thorough written findings and ordered

that judgment enter for the plaintiff.1

Based on the judge's clear findings, the defendant's claim

on appeal is unavailing. The judge found that Musenge did not

sign the application for a tenancy at the apartment, was not

listed as an "occupant-to-be" for the tenancy, was not listed as

an occupant of the rental premises in the lease, did not sign

the lease, and had never paid rent to the plaintiff. The judge

further determined that Musenge did not have a tenancy with the

plaintiff and "was an unauthorized occupant at most," there

1 In her findings, the judge also denied the defendant's motion to dismiss brought at the close of the trial.

2 without the permission of the plaintiff. Finally, the judge

"[did] not find evidence that the plaintiff knew that [Musenge]

was living there as a tenant," and thus she was not someone whom

the plaintiff "was required to terminate before it served the

summons and complaint beginning this eviction case." The record

provided on appeal, including the transcript of the summary

process trial, provides more than ample support for the judge's

findings, none of which are clearly erroneous. Where the record

supports the judge's finding that Musenge was not a tenant, the

defendant's claim fails.2

In addition, the defendant cites no binding precedent or

persuasive authority for his argument on appeal that a party is

required to name unauthorized or unknown occupants of a premises

in order to properly effectuate an eviction under Massachusetts

law. Finally, we note that Musenge did not file a motion to

The defendant's motion to alter and amend the summary 2

process judgment raised, in essence, the same arguments as those presented in his appeal of the summary process judgment. The judge did not abuse her discretion in denying that motion for the reasons already discussed herein.

3 intervene in the present action. See generally Beacon

Residential Mgmt., L.P. v. R.P., 477 Mass. 749, 757-758 (2017).3

Judgment affirmed.

Denial of motion to alter or amend judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Massing, Neyman & Wood, JJ.4),

Clerk

Entered: May 29, 2025.

3 The defendant's request for fees pursuant to the lease is denied. The plaintiff's request for appellate attorney's fees is also denied.

4 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.