Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Revere Housing Authority v. Aparicio

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

May 14, 2019

REVERE HOUSING AUTHORITY, Plaintiff,
v.
MARICEL APARICIO, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND

          F. Dennis Saylor IV, United States District Judge.

         This is an eviction action. Plaintiff Revere Housing Authority has filed a motion to remand, contending that removal of the case was untimely and that this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. For the following reasons, the motion will be granted.

         I. Background

         A. Factual Background

         The facts are set forth as described in the complaint and attached exhibits.[1]

         On April 24, 2007, Maricel Aparicio entered into a lease agreement with Revere Housing Authority (“RHA”) for a federal housing project unit located at 20 Rose Street in Revere, Massachusetts. (A.R. 13). Aparicio's son, Jeffrey Aparicio, was listed as the only other “authorized occupant” of the unit. (A.R. 13).

         Among other things, the lease provided that Aparicio would be required to “properly complete an Annual Continued Occupancy Form” that “includ[ed] verification of all facts contained therein.” (A.R. 15).

         On February 13, 2015, Dean Harris, the Director for Housing Management of RHA, sent Aparicio a letter stating that RHA was “considering terminating [her] lease.” (A.R. 10). The letter listed the following reasons: (1) Aparicio had “misrepresented facts on the submission of [her] annual Continued Occupancy Forms . . . in 2014, 2013, 2012 and 2011, ” including the facts that she had “failed to disclose [] income of [her] son” and had “failed to disclose a significant asset . . . i.e., a condominium unit . . . owned by [her] son”; and (2) because her “son . . . was arrested” and “charged” with multiple crimes in November 2014, including four counts of assault with a dangerous weapon and discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a building. (Id.).

         The letter further provided that Aparicio and her son had violated the following sections of her lease:

Section III. A - To live in a peaceful manner respecting the rights of neighbors as to privacy and quiet.
Section III.E - To properly complete an Annual Continued Occupancy Form, including verification of all facts contained therein; and to return to Management within thirty (30) days of its receipt.
Section III.F - To report to management within seven (7) days all increases in income and/or change in the size of the household, and to pay the adjusted rent as provided further in this lease.

(A.R. 11).

         The letter informed Aparicio that Harris had scheduled a “private conference” at the RHA office for February 24, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. (Id.). It also informed her that she had the “right to request” a “hearing under the grievance procedure” by submitting a request in writing within five days of the conference. (Id.).

         It appears that the conference was held on February 24, 2015. (A.R. 8). Neither party has provided any details as to what occurred at the conference.

         After the February 24 conference, Aparicio apparently next met with RHA, accompanied by her lawyer, on June 25, 2015. (Tr. at 24).[2] She contends that did not hear again from RHA until she received “paperwork to renew her lease” in late December 2015. (Tr. at 26). She also contends that she filled out and returned that paperwork to RHA. (Id.).[3]

         On January 4, 2016, John L. Greco, the Interim Executive Director of RHA, sent Aparicio a letter titled “30-DAY NOTICE TO QUIT/VACATE FOR VIOLATION OF LEASE.” (A.R. 8). The letter stated that the following facts had been “considered and discussed at the private conference held on February 24, 2015”:

1. That Aparicio “fraudulent[ly]” failed to report the fact that her son had “vacat[ed] the premises because [she] wanted a 2-bedroom unit.”
2. That Aparicio's rent was “based on income, ” and her failure to report her son's income and assets caused her to have paid less rent than she should have.
3. That Aparicio or her son had used different social security numbers and names on the paperwork they submitted to RHA than on the paperwork they had submitted to her son's employer, an act that prevented RHA from verifying her son's income and assets.

(A.R. 8-9). The letter stated that it was “therefore the intention of [RHA] to continue to pursue termination of [Aparicio's] tenancy for [the] reasons stated in the letter dated February 13, 2015.” (A.R. 9). ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.