Guideline 4:04
A judge considering a request for a stay away or no contact order must carefully evaluate the evidence presented to ensure that the c. 258E complaint is not being used as a substitute for a summary process eviction procedure or to prevent economic harm. Chapter 258E, § 3(g) requires the plaintiff to disclose any prior or pending court actions, administrative or disciplinary proceedings involving the parties. Whether or not such actions are disclosed, the judge must carefully discern the relationship between the parties and the potential effect of any stay away orders imposed. While fear of or actual damage to property may serve as an act of harassment, fear of economic loss as a result of a defendant’s actions does not constitute “harassment” under c. 258E.
Commentary
In cases where there is a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and the reviewing judge finds that there is sufficient evidence of “harassment,” the judge should not hesitate to order the necessary relief. However, as stated above, judges must be careful not to allow landlords to improperly use a c. 258E order to evict their tenants. See C.E.R. v. P.C., 91 Mass. App. Ct. 124, 124–125 (2017). Conduct such as playing music loudly, using strobe lights, or installing security cameras on property is insufficient to support a c. 258E complaint if it not intended to and does not cause the plaintiff to fear physical harm or damage to property. See C.E.R. v. P.C., 91 Mass. App. Ct. at 127-128; Gassman v. Reason, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 8 (2016).
Contact
Phone
Address
| Last updated: | October 20, 2025 |
|---|