Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts; September 9, 1980; Federal District Court
Attlebrook Properties, the Landlord of Longwood Towers, leased restaurant facilities to the debtor under a lease from 1977, which has faced ongoing disputes regarding assignments, rent, and repairs, leading to litigation now in federal court. The debtor has not paid rent since March 1980, and the restaurant is not operational. On April 29, 1980, the Landlord issued a 14-day notice to quit due to nonpayment, following Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 186, § 11. A Summary Process Complaint was filed on May 16, 1980, which was later consolidated with an earlier action in Norfolk Superior Court. The case is set for trial on September 23, 1980.
The Landlord argues that the lease was terminated before the debtor filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, leaving nothing for the court to address. Conversely, the debtor claims that under state law, the lease has not terminated, allowing it the opportunity to cure the default and assume the lease per 11 U.S.C. § 365(b)(1)(A). The Landlord's termination process was flawed; it should have provided a two-step notice including a 14-day opportunity to cure the default before actual termination. The notice issued did not comply with the lease's requirements, as it failed to specify a termination date or follow the stipulated procedure outlined in lease paragraph 12(i).
The Landlord failed to provide the necessary notices to terminate the lease as stipulated in paragraph 12(i) but instead followed the procedures outlined in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 186, § 11, which requires a written 14-day notice to quit for non-payment of rent. The Landlord properly issued a 14-day notice on May 2, 1980, and served a writ and summons on May 17, 1980. The debtor's procedural objections to this process are deemed untimely and improperly raised, as they should have been included in the debtor's Motion to Dismiss, which was not acted upon by the court before the time for answering was due. The Landlord contends that the Motion to Dismiss is inappropriate in a Summary Process Action, but this defense was not raised previously. The court will set the motion for hearing. The Landlord's reliance on previous case law is misplaced, as those cases do not involve the same statute or situation. The current case involves state statutory law and the debtor's contractual obligations. It is emphasized that the tenant has the right to cure the default before the answer is due, which has not yet arrived. Consequently, the tenant's rights under state law remain intact. The Landlord cannot be compelled to finance the debtor's Chapter 11 proceedings involuntarily. As a condition for maintaining the stay pending the hearing on September 23, the debtor must pay $800.00 in base rent for the period from June 17 to September 17, 1980. If the court denies the Motion to Dismiss, the debtor will have 10 days to respond, which is also the timeframe to remedy the default and avoid lease termination.
