37 Apt A. Complaint & Petition to Enforce Sanitary Code 1987 URADY
IA 01 ini
ra
Hampshire, ss.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Superior Court
Department of the
Trial Court
No. p7_ a p-
r( 0
ROBERT LaVALLEY and 1
MAUREEN LaVAI.LEY, )
Plaintiffs ) COMPLAINT AND PETITION TO
ENFORCE SANITARY CODE
v. )
)
MOGENS V. HERMANN, )
Defendant )
1. The Plaintiffs, Robert LaValley and Maureen LaValley,
husband and wife, are both individuals residing at 37A
Holyoke Street, Northampton, Massachusetts.
2. The Defendant, Mogens V. Hermann, is an individual residing
at 50 Hawley Street, Northampton, Massachusetts .
COUNT I
(Petition by Tenant
to Enforce State Sanitary Code,
M.G.L. Chapter 111, Section 127H)
3 . At _ all times relevant hereto, the Plaintiffs rented
residential property owned by the Defendant, and located at
37A Holyoke Street, Northampton, Massachusetts.
4. At all times relevant hereto, the said rental space
contained conditions which were in violation of the
standards of fitness for human habitation established under
the State Sanitary Code, which materially endangered and/or
materially impaired the health and well-being of the
Plaintiffs in that the premises was painted with paint that
contained lead in excess of that allowed by law, and
contained defective plumbing, windows , heating systems,
electrical systems, and was continuously infested with
rodents and other vermin during the entire period of the
tenancy.
5. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant was aware of
those violations and defective conditions and failed and
refused to remedy those conditions. A copy of certain
notices which were served upon the Defendant by the City of
Northampton Board of Health and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Department of Public Health are annexed hereto
as Exhibits "A" and 'B" and incorporated by reference
herein.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray:
A) That the Court issue a Short Order of Notice requiring
the Defendant to appear and to show cause why a preliminary
injunction should not issue ordering him to correct any and all
violations of the State Sanitary Code or rules and regulations
of the local. Board of Health forthwith;
B) That the Court preliminarily and permanently enjoin the
Defendant from renting residential property which contains
violations of either the State Sanitary Code or the rules and
regulations set forth and adopted by the Northampton Board of
Health;
C) That the Court order the Defendant to forthwith correct
any and all violations of the State Sanitary Code and the rules
and regulations of the Board of Health which exist in the
Plaintiffs ' residence;
D) That the Court order all rent paid by the Plaintiffs
since the inception of the tenancy be returned by the Defendant
to the Plaintiffs because the Plaintiffs dwelling unit did not
meet minimum standards of habitability;
E) That the Court order such additional relief as it seems ,
just and appropriate.
COUNT II
6. The Plaintiffs restate each and every allegation contained
in Paragraphs 1 through 5 of this Complaint and incorporate
the same by reference herein.
7 . The Defendant rented to the Plaintiffs a dwelling unit that
did not meet the minimum standards of habitability required
in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and that rental
materially threatened the health and welfare of the
Plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand Judgment against the
Defendant for all rents paid by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant
since the inception of the tenancy, plus interest and costs.
COUNT III
8. The Plaintiffs restate each and every allegation contained
in Paragraphs 1 through 7 of this Complaint and incorporate
the same by reference herein.
9 . The Defendant has undertaken a course of conduct
intentionally designed to humiliate, embarass, frighten, and
restrict the Plaintiffs from excercising rights guaranteed
to them under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
and has, in fact, intentionally inflicted severe emotional
distress upon the Plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand Judgment against the
Defendant in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
( $100,000 ) , plus interest and costs .
Now Comes the Plaintiff, Robert LaValley, and states that he
is a person having personal knowledge of the allegations
contained in this Complaint and states, that to the best of his
knowledge, said allegations are true.
Subscribed and sworn to under the pains and penalties of
perjury this . y,1 day of September, 1987 .
Robert Lavalley
The Plaintiffs,
Hy/Their Attorney,
f1 k •
William J. O'Grady, Esq.
162 College Highway
P.O. Box 249
Southampton, Massachusetts 01073
( 413 ) 527-8660
AM J.0 GRAnv
Commonwealth of :iaseachu-
setts , Hampshire , 3S.
Robert LaVALLEY and
Maureen LaVALLEY
Plaintiffs
v.
Mogens V. HERMANN
Defendant
Superior Court, Depart-
ment of the Trial Court,
Civil Action
No 87-298.
Summons and Order of
Notice.
I, Mogens V. Hermann, of 50 Hawley Street, Northamp-
ton, Mass. , 01060, Phone 586-2689, hereby present my
answer to Summons and Order of-Notice of- October 2,
1987, in reference to the above-mentioned case.
1. Items for Immediate Attention: (1) In my para-
graphs o1-67, as well as in paragraphs 71 and 81 , I've
suggested that perjury charges ought to be pressed
against my opponents, including the lawyer. (2) In my
paragraph 87, by application of ":4assachusetts Rules of
Civil Procedure" , section 13(c) , I've filed a counter-
claim much larger than anything my opponents have asked
of me. And (3) I've also listed other counterclaims,
in paragraphs 84 and 86, which should probably be trea-
ted as urgent.
2. The Summons and Order of Notice was served on me
on October 7 this year. A preliminary hearing on some
of its subject matters was held on the following day. I
protested against the shortness of the lapse of time
allowed me in preparation for that hearing, but Judge
:Murphy, who conducted it, overruled my protest.
3. The claimants have sought judgments against me in
three main categories of charges, namely (AY my delays
in complying with certain Sanitary-Code orders , for
which they asked the judge to order me to complete the
works "forthwith. " (H) Conditions allegedly below "mi-
nimum standards of fitness for human habitation" , which
had allegedly existed since May, 1985, for which they
asked a compensation equal to all the rent they've paid
me since that time, plus interests and costs. And (C)
alleged uncivil and offensive behavior on my part, al-
legedly designed to intimidate, emberass, frighten and
restrict the plaintiffs, allegedly amounting to inten-
tional infliction of severe emotional distress, for
which they 've asked a payment of x100,000.00, plus in-
terest and costs.
4. As I write this (October 21) , I haven' t heard
from Judge Murphy in reference- to the matters mentioned
under my caption 3(A) . I therefore assume that the
claims marked "forthwith" have been deemed to be unrea-
sonable, so that I can disregard them.
:1VH to 3.C. , 10-20-87, page 2.
5. In any event, it seems to me that Mr. LaValley ' s
request for immediate compliance with inspector's or-
ders , issued more than two months earlier, was Irration-
al and ill-considered in several ways. Such as: (a)
Mrs. LaValley had a few weeks previously requested me
to delay the ordered internal repair works until the
de-leading job ( ordered June 29) was being done. ( b) I
had agreed, since I found her request reasonable, in
view of some very obvious personality clashes and other
human factors. (a) The LaValley couple had on several
earlier occasions taken steps to delay my efforts to
comply with the recent inspector' s orders. (d) Even so,
I had completed several good-will tokens of my willing-
ness to comply , And (e) the timing of the said repair
works was , as a matter of administrative principle, a
matter to be determined Jointly by me and the Board of
Health; not by Mr. LaValley, especially not in view of
the several awkward factors involved.
6. I take this opportunity to point out two details
which may or may not be important. Namely that the en-
tire complaint is signed by Robert LaValley, not by
his wife . And that Mr. LaValley, in all the papers I
had seen with his name on them until quite recently,
had spelled his name LaVallee. In the following, how-
ever , I spell it as LaValley, since this is the form
used by the Court.
7. My opponents took a heavy responsibility upon
themselves as they launched the present court case
( 87-298) . In this connection, I want to point out that
Mrs. LaValley was present in the courtroom at the Octo-
ber 8 hearing, and didn't take steps to disassociate
herself from the case . She must therefore be considered
to be part responsible for the contents of the Summons
-paper to which I now reply.
9. I see irony, and an astonishing absence of sound
thought, in the fact that Mr. LaVallee has tried to
induce a Judge to force me to go inside his apartment ,
and make repair works there , while filing monetary
claims of the kind he did. Mrs. LaVallee is nearly al-
ways in the apartment; she seems unwilling to have me
there unless she is present. Whatever personality ten-
sions existed before October 7 were sure to be heigh-
tened after that; the whole Summons paper seeme crazy
to me, on this ground if not on any other.
9. I should perhaps apologize to the reader for see-
ming to hart on this matter, but I see in it a fit
prelude to whatever else I have to say In reference to
the case as a whole .
10. I regard the claims summarized by me under cap-
tions 3(E) and 3(C) , above , as so many cynical and dis-
honest attempts at ripoff of the elderly man that I am.
I am 68 years of age, born in January 1919.
11. Since the claimants ' reasoning is as specious,
MVM to S.C. , 10-20-97, ca:-e 3.
convoluted and dishonest as it is, it would, according
to the old proverb, take a rhlladelphia lawyer to unra-
vel it. I am not that kind of person, but I' ll do my
best anyhow, or my worst. As part of my effort, I feel
justified in blackening the character of my opponents,
and if in doing no I offend against ordinary courtroom
etiquette , so be it.
12. My attacks on my opponentc ' credioility are moti-
vated to some extent by self-defense. However, in legal
contests as in military war, some of the weapons forged
for the make of defense can be used for more than that.
As already mentioned, I hope that disciplinary measures
will be undertaken aeainst at least one of my oppo-
nents.
1?.The first information I got about Mr. O'Grady' s
involvement with the LaValley couple was through a
letter of his dated July 30 this year, which I received
on August 3 ( see my attachment 7) . The letter notified
me that he represented the interest of Mr. and Mrs.
Robert . LaValley. It contained a patently false state-
ment, to the effect that no progress had been made with
respect to certain mandated repair works, referred tc in
Mr. O'Grady ' s letter. The letter contained a sophisti-
cated half-truth to the effect that his clients "will
withhold rent" until certain specified conditions had
been met. Of course , that phrase seemed to imply that
the rent withhold began in August.
14. I immediately produced and sent an answer, in
which I corrected the above-mentioned false statement,
and furnished proof, in the shape of a plumber' s repair
bill. I also stated that Mr. O'Grady ' s clients had
withheld rent for both July and August. Finally , I as-
ked him whether the rent withhold was being done on the
basic of MGL C 239 , section BA, and I pointedly reques-
ted an answer to that question. ( see my attachment 8) .
15. I never got a reply. I had sent my letter by cer-
tified mail, and I got the green card back a few days
later, but it had been signed by a different person. So,
he may not have seen it , but according to ordinary busi-
ness practice , he is responsible either way. He should
have severed his connection with the LaValley couple
soon afterwards , or at least adopted an attitude of ex-
treme skepticism in their regard. The fact that he did
not reflects very badly on his credibility.
lc. On September 24 thin year, I received from him
a letter dated September 21; see my Attachment 10. It
contained most of the charges summarized by me under
caption 3(3) , above . In that letter , O'Grady urged me
to return to the LaValley couple , on or before October
24, all the rent money they had ever raid me. The let-
ter went on to threaten that if in this I failed, I
might have to pay "treble damages , plus liability for
reasonable costs and attorneys fees . °
MVH to S.C. . 10-20-37, page L.
17. It is my understanding, and I state this only
tentatively , that a letter sent by a lawyer to a lay-
man, asking for money, in a manner that isn' t backed up
by certain and undeniable documentation and law, can be
construed as a form of blackmail. I ask the Court to
look into this matter.
18. No definite amount of money was mentioned in the
letter, but anyone who knows the basic facts about the
LaValley couple ' s tenancy with me can easily calculate
it with certainty. Mr. and Mrs. LaValley have been my
tenants since May, 1985, and they've paid me rent for
26 months. The amount has always been $315; so the ba-
sic amount of refund requested by Mr. O'Grady was , in
effect, equal to $8,190. The larger amount requested
might well have come to more than 425,000. I never an-
swered his letter, because I considered it as an obvi-
ous sham. But now that he himself has chosen to go to
court, I think it is in order for me to mention it.
19. As a further reflection on the
O'Grady , I want to mention the manner
sent Summons and Order of Notice was
apparently signed on October 2, and I
served on me by a sheriff on October
main opening phrase requested me to p
answer within 20 days. I had every re
that that amount of time was availabl
really urgent matter was pending. tars
formerly mentioned, had told me to de
works, and with that I had agreed. No
told me that I had to appear in court
2: 00 P.M. ; as a matter of fact, I ne
deadline , because I thought I had 20
make my first move. I believe it was
Ir. O'Grady so as to make me miss the
and if I had, I would have been in de
default
character of Mr.
in which the pre-
handled. It was
know that it was
7. The paper' s
resent a written
aeon to believe
e to me, since no
. LaValley , as
lay all Internal
one specifically
on October 8 at
arly missed the
days in which to
all contrived by
court session,
ep trouble by
20. Before going into detailed commentaries about
the claims made in the Summons paper, I want to state
a few facts about my relations with the LaValley cou-
ple , in their quality of tenants of mine.
21. As stated above, they became my tenants in May,
1985, and the rent has always been 5315 monthly. That
is what they paid, without ever being much in arrears,
until and including June 1, 1987. A Rental Agreement
was signed on May 4, 1985; see my Attachment 1. Among
its provisions, I want to draw attention to items 6
and 16, which I qoute below:
22. Item 6: "At the beginning of tenancy, the land-
lord will submit to the tenant( s) a statement of condi-
tion of the apartment, including information about the
color of walls, and damage previously done , of such a
nature that it might otherwise be imputed to the pre-
MVH to S.C. , 10-20-87, page 5.
sent tenant(. Tenant( s) must either present objections
within fifteen days , or suffer the submitted statement
of condition to be considered fair and accurate. " Item
16: "Dripping faucets and other malfunctionings shall
be reported by tenant(s) before they turn into major
damages. "
23. A statement of condition as just described was
made out by me on May 13, 1985, after an inspection
jointly made by the LaValley couple and I (see my at-
tachment 21 . I delivered the statement on May 14, and
I talked to them about it. They didn' t express any dis-
satisfaction with the apartment ' s general condition,
except that Mrs. LaValley said that she wanted some
coats of paint here and there. I must confess that I
ignored that wish of hers. Nothing was said about plum-
bing or other such technical features , and in fact,
nothing was wrong with any of it, except for such im-
perfections as exist everywhere in this imperfect
world.
24. From the inception of tenancy until the last
few days of June , 1987, there wasn' t any major quar-
rel about technical features in the apartment. The few
minor malfunctionings that occurred were in each case
corrected in a few hours or days, as in the case of
other tenants. During those 25 months plus, the LaVal-
ley couple never, as far as I know, tried to enlist
the cooperation of a Sanitary-Code inspector to en-
force the law against me. As far as I know, thus, the
apartment wasn' t inspected by any public official du-
ring those more than two years.
25. Mr. and Mrs. LaValley were childless in May,
1985, as they became my tenants. They remained so un-
til May 25 or thereabouts, as they got a baby. But
then, what with childbirth, several inspections , and
the issuance of an inspector' s order to remove lead
paint , there came a drastic change of the entire cha-
racter of their tenancy, and of their relationship
with me.
26. During the previous 25 months, I had considered
Robert LaValley to be a friend of me . He and I had on
several occasions cooperated with each other on pro-
jects of his choosing. For instance , I remember a time,
probably In 1985, when he said that some outside wood-
work needed to be painted. So, he and I worked out a
deal, by which I would buy the paint and pay him for
his labor. We stuck by the agreement made; I was satis-
fied, and he seemed to be also. Later, he received a
luxurious looking bathroom sink and cabinet , as a gift
from somewhere. Heasked for my permission to install
it, and to take the old one out. I agreed, he did the
work, and I paid him 4110 for the job. He also instal-
led some wooden shelves for me, at his own suggestion,
and I paid him for the labor. All told, then, Robert
MVH to S.C. , 10-20-87, p-ge 6
LaValley was, for those 25 months, one of the best te-
nants I had ever had. He was occasionally late with
rent, but I easily forgave him for that, in view of our
otherwise satisfactory relationship.
27. I seldom talked to Mrs. LaValley. Old-fashioned
European as I am, I found it more natural to deal with
a man than with his wife. I rather avoided her for the
first 25 months. On one occasion, however, I had a de-
finitely unpleasant phone conversation with her, namely
on February 6 this year. The couple were late with
rent for February. So, I dialed the LaValley phone num-
ber, and got Mrs. LaValley on the line. I said that I
wanted rent, but her answer amounted to this, that she
would pay when it pleased her, not when I wanted the
money. After having protested and received no satis-
faction, I typed out an eviction notice, and took steps
to have it served by a sheriff (my attachment 3) .
28. As I typed out that notice , I knew/that I wasn' t
about to force her out of the apartment. I myself had
inserted the following phrase into the notice: "Since
you have been my tenants for more than twelve months,
and I haven' t sent you a previous notice for nonpayment
of rent , you have a right to prevent termination by
mailing me, by certified mail, a money order for 0315. "
(see attachment 3) .
29 I realize that it was unpleasant for Mr. and Mrs.
LaValley to receive that notice , but I believe that in
sending it, I did what a landlord ought to do when con-
fronted with such a defiant and irresponsible behavior.
30. Rent for March, April, May and June came very
promptly. Each payment was made by Mr. LaValley, and he
was very careful about documentary proof of his pay-
ments.
31. People who have never been landlords, and who
have never received an order to remove lead paint from
an apartment, cannot imagine what it is like to receive
such an order. It ' s a devastating experience, especial-
ly when, as in my case , it ' s the first time .
32. The Order starts out by stating that there ' s
an emergency. That' s part of the printed form, and it
is there , 'black on white, whether it ' s true or not. I
full well knew that in my case it wasn' t, because no
newborn baby is in any kind of danger from lead paint.
The danger starts at the age of seven months or there-
abouts. but the statement is there , and it made me very
uncomfortable , because it showed that my affairs were
decisively influenced by liars. The Order goes on to
state that certain works, described in detail further
on, must be completed within seven days. It ' s stated,
in the next paragraph, that if in that I fail, I'll
be hauled into court and fined 5500.J0 for each day' s
delay beyond that limit. Tenants are expressly allowed
to withhold rent, and they cannot be evicted. Then
lNH to S.C. , 10-20-H7, page 7.
come many pages of instructions as to how the lead
paint is to be removed; it reads like the twelve la-
bors of Hercules. I immediately realized that I could
not do that by myself, any more than I could build a
house by myself. There are other infuriating state-
ments further on, including one that says, Just like
that, right between the eyes, that it isn't the te-
nants ' fault. The whole thing is, in short, devasta-
ting.
'33. Speaking of people who, in Mr. O'Grady ' s words,
undertake courses of conduct "intentionally designed to
humiliate, embarass, frighten " while intentionally
inflicting severe emotional distress on somebody, yes,
those people in Jamaica Plain, near Boston, who issued
those regulations, and who caused those papers to be
printed, they are definitely guilty of that!
34. I soon realized that a de-leading Jon would cost
me about A4,000, to be paid to a state-licensed de-
leading contractor. Meanwhile I knew that the job wasn' t
needed as a precaution against poisoning of the LaVal-
ley baby, or child, because virtually all the accessi-
ble paint is firm and smooth. Technically, the remain-
der could. be taken care of very easily, with a few
strips of duct tape, to be applied at a cost of no more
than 50 dollars.
35. I happen to know that thousands of families with
small children live in Massachusetts apartments whose
woodwork is covered with lead paint. That paint isn' t
dangerous unless it peels, and they know it. They also
know that a de-leading job is a traumatic experience
for them as well as for their property owner. And if
they don't call the inspector, he won' t come , and the
problem doesn' t arise. The law is enforced only hap-
hazardly, and that ' s one of the most infuriating as-
pects of it , as seen with the eyes of those who get
caught in the net.
36. In every state of the Union, there are many more
tenants than landlords. In this state , as in several
others, tenants have used their political clout to bam-
boozle the authorities into passing a steady stream of
very unstatesmanlike laws , rules and regulations. Those
pieces of legislation are obviously designed to streng-
then the hands of tenants in their dealings with land-
lords , but some of them are vicious, inasmuch as they
contain insults and lies which are obviously meant to
work as psychological warfare. It' s so much sock-it-
to-then with a vengeance. Now, those tenants who are
reasonably thoughtful and compassionate know all that;
they therefore make it a point to avoid inspectors and
other authorities. It' s a sign of either ignorance or
viciousness to call an inspector, except in case of a
serious unmet emergency or intolerable landlord negli-
gence.
'„MVH to S.C. , 10-21-87, page 8.
'7. The serving of an inspector' s order to de-lead
an apartment creates, on a small scale, a topsy-turvy
world not unlike the one that came about after the Rus-
sian Revolution of 1917. Thus , in the movie "Dr. Zhivago"
I saw pictures of tenants lording it over their former
landlords. Of course , they didn' t pay rent. Well, that' s
roughly how I felt in July and August 1987, after those
papers had been served on me.
38. On July 2, 1987, I signed receipts for two en-
velopes from the Board of Health. One of them ordered
me to remove lead paint, the other to do some more or-
dinary Sanitary-Code works.
39. On the afternoon of the same day, I had a short
phone conversation with Mrs LaValley. She made it clear
that she had received copies of the same papers, and
that she had read them.
40. Also on that same afternoon, I had a few conver-
eatione with a Mr. James Carroll , who had been recom-
mended to me as a good de-leading contractor. We talked
back and forth, and it wasn' t until late in the evening
that we agreed to meet in front of the LaVallee apart-
ment at 10:00 on the next day.
41. Mr. Carroll had told me that in view of the or-
der' s emergency features, it would be all right for him,
and for me if I wanted, to get in at extremely short
notice , or with none at all.
42. At 6: 00 A.M. of July 3 , I dialed the LaValley
phone number, but no one took the phone. I tried again
a half-hour later, and several times further on, but no
one took the phone. Then I presented myself at the door,
at 9:30, and gave an oral message to the effect that a
de-leading contractor would be there at 10:00. Mr. Car-
roll duly came , and there followed a heated exchange of
words between he and Mr. LaValley. The latter definitely
didn' t want to let us in, and he only yielded as'.9r.
Carroll, pointing to the order' s emergency features ,
threatened to call the police to help get us in (see my
attachment 6) .
43. On July 6, Mrs. LaValley called the Board of
Health, says ng that she wanted to be left in peace for
five or six weeks. As I now look back, I see those
events, of July 3 and 6, as the beginningrof a long
chain of hassles. See my attachments 5, 6, 9 , 11 and
12. Repeatedly, I wanted to comply with some of the or-
dinary Sanitary-Code orders , and repeatedly, I was pre-
vented from doing so. Meanwhile, the LaValley couple
were withholding rent, from the very beginning. 'They
didn ' t even have the courtesy of telling me where the
money ;rent. And of course , the law nad placed me in a
position of being unable to evict them.
MVH to 3.C. , 10-20-87, age 9 .
44. Now to direct commentaries on the claims made
on me in the Summons paper.
45. As my opponents , in the 'Summons ' Prayer (D) , and
also in its Count II, demanded refund of all the rent
they had ever paid me , they must have done it on the
basis of a maxim which, if clearly stated, would go
somewhat like: "Any occupant of an apartment who alle-
ges that that apartment had Sanitary-Code 'violations '
in it since the beginning of occupancy is entitled to
a full refund of all rent paid to that landlord. "
46. That maxim, if it were valid, would draw its
strength from two assumptions , both of which are false,
but I want to state them all the same , so as to show
why the maxim itself is false. Namely: (A) that a mere
allegation by a tenant (or other occupant) should al-
ways be taken as Gospel truth, and (B) that terms such
as "Minimum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation" ,
and "endanger or materially impair the health, safety
and well-being of the occupants" , which appear, firmly
imprinted, on all Sanitary-Code orders , are so unques-
tionably true as to form proper foundations for impor-
tant court decisions.
47. It is self-evident that mere allegations on the
part of tenants, or other "occupants" , shouldn' t auto-
matically be accepted as true. That takes care of cap-
tion (A) , above. As to caption (B) , it calls for some
more elaboration, which I shall now try to give:
48. The Massachusetts State Sanitary Codes one of
those laws that I mentioned in paragraph ;6 , above,
which seem to be motivated more by hatred of landlords
than by anything else . Its authors at one time prided
themselves on having produced the nation' s toughest
Code of its kind, and that may well be true , but it
doesn't reflect any glory on them. It is full of per-
nickety details which seem to be designed more to gene-
rate trouble than to do anyhting else. For instance, a
missing sash cord, which doesn' t impose any serious
hardship on anyone , is technically a 'violation' of the
Code . Hundreds of thousands of Commonwealth residents
live with broken sash cords for years, and never think
any of it. But if a tenant sees a few rlaces from where
sash cords are missing, and if he or she calls the in-
spector, then the inspector is obliged to order new
cords to be installed. The paper on which the order is
typed will have the words "MInimum Standards of Fitness
for Human Habitation" printed on it. There will also
be words to the effect that the 'violation' - as it is
called with a very obnoxious misnomer - is "serious eno-
ugh as to endanger or materially impair the health,
safety, and well-being of the occupants. "
49. Words of that type are imprinted on all the in-
spectors ' orders that I have seen. As far as I know,
they are imprinted on all of them, period. But every
_WH to S.C. , 10-20-87, page 10.
thoughtful person knows them to be so many lies. They
are , quite simply , so many weapons in the authorities '
psychological warfare against landlords, and no reason-
able person will see anything else in them.
50. It is an irony of Fate that I, of all people,
should be hit with a lawsuit based on those vicious,
insulting, and almost always mendacious statements. I
am a special person insofar as that is concerned, be-
cause a few years ago - more exactly in February 19el -
I began a one-man crusade , which included many court
appearances , designed to get the Massachusetts State
Sanitary Code abolished by judicial review. At one time ,
my case became Appeals Court Case 82-540. If I had won
it outright, the Sanitary Code would have been stricken
from the books, and the authorities would have had to
write a new one. I did win the case , as per Appeals
Court Order of May 5, 1983, but my victory was awarded
on the basis of a technicality; so the Code remained on
the books, with all its lies and other flaws.
51. While doing research for my court appearances, I
discovered that the term "Minimum Standards of Fitness
for Human Habitation" , which is being used as a kind of
nickname for the Sanitary Code, is illegal. I found
that out by studying a law called MGL 0111, section
127A, which is the enabling law for the Sanitary Code.
It is stated in that law that a certain agency would be
empowered to issue "public health regulations to be
known as the state sanitary code. " Since the law speci-
fically stated the Code ' s official name, it was illegal
for the agency to give it another name , such as "Mini-
mum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation. "
52. I fought those court battles alone, on a "pro se"
basis. I declare this with some pride , and also as a
warning to any one who may think that they can trifle
with me, on the supposition that I must be a country
bumpkin who is afraid of courtrooms. nut I doubt whether
my discovery about the Sanitary Code ' s illegal nick-
name is relevant to the present situation.
53. The conclusion that I draw from my paragraphs
45-52, above , is that as my opponents , in the Summons '
Prayer (D) , and in its Count II , demanded a refund of
all the rent they had ever paid me , they did so on the
basis of specious reasoning, which in turn was based
on lies of-various kinds.
54. I wonder whether a judge of this county' s Supe-
rior Court will want to go as deeply into these matters
as I have done. If the judge wants to side-step the
issue , he can do it by pointing to the fact that the
claimants haven' t proven anything much to have been
consistently wrong with their apartment since the in-
ception of their tenancy. However, I do believe that
eventually, somebody will have to grannie with the va-
rious questions raised by those mendacious and mis-
leading words , imprinted on Sanitary-Code stationery.
MVH to S.C. , 10-29-87, page 11.
55. There is yet another way of looking at the mat-
ter: if my opponents were to win a refund of all or most
of the rent they had paid me , a precedent would have
been set which would have very disturbing social conse-
quences. As far as I can see , tens of thousands of other
tenants would want to follow the example established by
Messrs. O'Grady and LaValley.
56. Some of them might even be able to prove that
substandard features had existed in their apartments
since they moved in, and then there would be a very awk-
ward "fat in the fire. "
57. On the light side: granted that I4r. and Mrs. La-
Valley have lived in that apartment of theirs for al-
most two and a half years , while it was allegedly unfit
for human habitation, what does that say about themsel-
ves? Does it mean that they aren' t human?
58. According to well-established law, tenants may
acquire a right to rent rebate after an inspector' s
order has been issued, but then only on the strength
of a specific court order, based on actual hardship
for which they aren't to blame in any way. But a refund
without previous inspector' s report would be more of a
legal innovation than anyone ought to stomach.
59. After these lofty philosophical considerations ,
I want to focus, once again, on the Summons paper' s ac-
tual wording. In particular, I want to draw the atten-
tion to that paper' s item 4, which is found on page 1.
Item 4 is being used in three different contexts, namely
in reference to the "Prayers" on page 2, in reference
to "Count II" , and in reference to "Count III. " , all of
which are on page 2.
60. On three occasions on page 1 , Mr. O'Grady has
given evidence of a very unhelpful attitude by using
the ambiguous and confusing words "At all times rele-
vant hereto" , instead of the simple piece of informa-
tion "since May 4, 1985" , which is really meant.
61. As Messrs. O'Grady and LaValley signed their
Summons paper, they did so under penalty of perjury;
see their page 3. That being so, I think it was very
uprise for them to include in their item 4 a passage
such as: "the premises was painted with paint that
contained lead in excess of that allowed by law. . . "
62. I want to re-state the fact that item 4 has
been incorporated by the authors into "Count II. "
Item 4 is thus part of the rationale by which my op-
ponents presume to justify their request for refund
of all the rent they 've ever paid me. That fact, in
turn, means that item 4 refers to the 26 months be-
ginning in May, 1985 and ending on the first of July,
1987. Item 4 may also be taken to refer to the weeks
after July 1, but that fact is irrelevant as seen in
the context of Count II.
NH to S.C. , 10-20-87, page 12.
6? . :ly opponents , in their usual sleazy manner,
have insinuated that perhaps I was the one who put the
lead paint there. But in fact I haven' t done that. The
lead paint is . simply there; it should be considered as
one of the situation' s given factors.
64. As already noted herein (my paragraph 25) , the
LaValle) couple was childless from the inception of
their tenancy until some time late in May, 1997.
65. Taking together the data stated in my paragraphs
62-64, the existence of lead paint in the LaValley a-
partment during the period of time mentioned in para-
graph 64 wasn' t illegal in any way, as anyone half-way
familiar with the laws would know. Very definitely, Mr.
O ' Grady ought to know, since he is a lawyer dealing
with this kind of subjects.
66. As to the last few weeks of the LaValley cou-
ple ' s rent-raying residence, I would say, first of all,
that that' s obviously not what my opponent4 eant when
claiming refund of 26 months ' rent. In the second
place, the existence of lead paint wasn' t illegal du-
ring those last few weeks , either, because the autho-
rities have admitted in practice that the administra-
tive legal effects of lead paint start with the land-
lord' s receipt of order to remove lead paint. I signed
receipt for the inspector ' s order on July 2, 1987 , and
that date was after the termination og the period of
time covered by my opponents ' "Count II. "
67. Everybody makes mistakes; I am sure that I have
made quite a few of them in these paragraphs. but it ' s
one thing for a writer to make a few mistakes in an
effort which, in principle , is legitimate. It' s a quite
different matter when a couple of hoodlums such as Messrs.
O'Grady and LaValley band together in an elaborate and
cynical effort to extort money from somebody, and when,
as part of that effort, they falsely accuse their in-
tended victim of having broken the law. That, exactly,
is what Messrs. O'Grady and LaValley have done with
that sleazy phrase of theirs, and that ' s why I think
they should be prosecuted for perjury.
68. The other accusations made in Item 4 are trivial
by comparison, except that they provide additional evi-
dence of by opponents' tricky methods. For instance,
the word "rodents" , which appears in their litany, may
be understood to mean "Squirrels" , since squirrels are
rodents. Of course, there are quite a few squirrels in
the neighborhood, and I cannot deny that they may occa-
sionally have come into the attic.
69. I notice the fact that although the apartment
has been inspected at least twice recently, in June and
August this year, nothing was said in the reports about
rodents. Nor about vermin, for that sake, and if indeed
there is vermin in the LaValley apartment, it may , the-
oretically, have been introduced by the tenants them-
VH to S.C. , 10-20-87, page 13 .
selves. If that is so, ( and I doubt it) , then the ex-
pense of fumigation may be for me to shoulder, but the
tenants can hardly use the nests as pretexts for major
payments to them, such as those claimed in the Summons'
Counts II and III.
70.All the other claims made in Item 4 should be disre-
garded as being the products of twisted and greedy
minds, whose level of credibility has been shown to be
extremely low.
71. The allegations made in the Summons' item 5 are
underhanded and dishonest in the extreme. Like the
phrase quoted in my paragraph 61, I think they should
be used as foundations for disciplinary measures to be
undertaken against my opponents.
72. The following refers to the allegations made in
Item 9 of the Summons.
73. First of all, I want to point out that whoever
comes to court for redress of an alleged wrong must come
with clean hands. It' s implicit in my whole text, begin-
ning on page One, that I think my opponents are a bunch
of crooks, and that being so, it may be overkill for me
to add anything to the record. But I'll do it all the
same , because I want to point out how much they are
guilty of the misdemeanor of which they accuse me.
74. I've already pointed out, in my paragraph 43 ,
above that those tenants of mine have for months,
beginning in July, withheld rent while taking actions
which, intentionally or not, had the effect of delay-
ing my efforts to obey inspectors' orders. The deci-
sion to withhold rent, though, must have been taken in-
tentionally. The law doesn' t require them to stop pay-
ments; even less does it require them to keep me in
the dark as to where the money went , and that ' s what
they did. In all this, there was a strong element of
deliberate infliction of emotional distress on their
part. Which, I want' to point out, came on ton of the
mental torture imposed by those authorities in Jamaica
Plain, of which any sentient person must have been
aware .
75. :Ar. O'Grady' s letter of September 21 was beset
with a strpng element of deliberate infliction of emo-
tional distress. Obviously so, and I don' t think that
I have to elaborate.
76. The Summons to which I an now answering has in
it quite a lot of the same. Again, I don' t think that
I have to elaborate , because it ' s so very obvious .
77. The Summons doesn' t give any clear indications
as to what my opponents believe that I've done by the
way of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
I am no angel, and I may have done something, but I
just wonder what they have in mind.
NVH to 3.C. , 10-20-87, page 14.
78.Of course , they must have felt humiliated by some of
the things I did. But in this context , I want to point
out that life itself is a continuous producer of humi-
liations. Anyone who goes to an exam and gets a poor
grade will feel humiliated, unless he or she is excep-
tionally well insulated against that kind of senti-
ment. The same is true of anyone who gets a traffic
ticket , or who loses a sports event to some previously
despised opponent. But that doesn' t mean that the vic-
tim is automatically entitled to thousands of dollars'
worth of indemnity from the one who inflicted the hurt.
79. Take my eviction notice of February 6 as an
example. I am sure that Mrs. LaValley , and maybe her
husband also, must have felt embarassed and humiliated
by it. But I did have legitimate reasons for sending
it, More exactly, Mrs. LaValley had, as is commonly
said, "been asking for it" , and she is Just plain
wrong if she thinks she is entitled to any indemnity
on that account.
80. I now suggest that some of the other allegations
made in the Summons ' item 9 should perhaps be viewed
in the same light.
91. The phrase "restrict the Plaintiffs from exerci-
sing rights guaranteed to them under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts" is very cloudy. I chal-
lenge my opponents to prove it true, in any substantial
and relevant sense. If they cannot do that, they should,
in my opinion, be prosecuted for perjury.
82. Now to the counterclaims. I've done some reading
in "Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure" , and there
found the following: 13(b) : "A pleading may state as a
counterclaim any claim against an opposing party. " And
13(c) : "A counterclaim may or may not . . . claim relief
exceeding in amount or different in kind from that
sought in the pleading of the opposing party. "
33. First of all , I want to mention that I've filed
a claim in Small Claims Court against Mrs. LaValley
for 361.50 plus costs , representing a plumber' s bill
that I've paid, but which she, by virtue of the Rental
Agreement ' s item 15, ought to refund to me. That claim
of mine will probably have been settled on November 18,
but I just, want to mention it in passing.
84. I petition the court to order Mr. and Hrs. La-
Valley to pay me the rent they've withheld. Right now,
they owe me for July, August, September and October.
The amount thus comes to $1,260 today; it will pro-
bably be higher by the time the present counterclaim
comes to court.
85. In this connection, I want to mention that the
de-leading job ordered by Mr. McErlain on June 29 is
due to begin on October 26, and will probably be com-
pleted by the time this claim comes to court.
MVH to .C. , 10-22-87, page 15.
86. I petition the Court to order `?r. and Mrs. La-
Valley , a.k.a. Mr. and Mrs. LaVallee, to pay future
rent either to me or to a proper receiver. I suggest
that the proper spelling of the name be checked by
the Court in advance.
87. Now to the big stuff. Basically it comes to
three times the amount that Mr. O' Grady has so un-
justly claimed from me. In his Count II he asked for
x$8,190.00 plus interest and cost; in his Count III he
asked for $100,000.00 plus. Total $108,190.00 plus,
which I feel justified in trebling, in view of the de-
ceptive word games he has practiced so profusely. So,
the final amount comes to 024, 570.00 (three hundred &
twentyfour thousand, five hundred and seventy dollars)
plus interest and costs.
88. My primary target for this claim is Mr. O'Grady
himself, but if he cannot pay, the law firm of Parker
and O'Grady, to which he seems to belong, should be
held responsible.
89. I attach hereto a "List of Attachme
all the documents mentioned therein.
90. Most of these pages were typed on 0
and 21, but the reply as a whole is being
the Court on October 22.
nts" , and
ctober 20
filed to
91. Mr. O'Grady will be served, if possible , the
same day. Also, a copy will be conveyed to the law
firm of Parker and O'Grady, in view of the above-men-
tioned large counterclaim.
Done at Northampton, Massachusetts ,
October 22, 1987
Defendant and Counterclaimant ,
Case 87-298.
•
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
to Mogens V. Hermann' s Reply,
Case 87-298.
1. Rental Agreement, ;'ay 4, 1985 (2pp, back to back)
2. Statement of Condition, 5_14_85, 2pp, b-to-b)
All the following papers are
in reference to 1987.
3. Eviction Notice , Feb. 6, one page. ..
4. Order to Remove Lead Paint, June 29 , one page.
5. David Kachan' s letter of July 9 , one page
6. Joint Affidavit, July 10 , one nage
7. Wm. O'Grady' s letter of July 30, one page
8. My answer, August 3, one nage
9. McErlain' s letter, August 4, one page
10. Wm O'Grady' s letter, Sept 21, 2pp, separate.
11 My notes of October 8, one page .
12. McErlain' s letter of October 9, 2pp, separate.
23. McErlain' s letter of October 13, one page .
Note: The Summons Paper isn' t in-
cluded, since it' s supposed to be
available elsewhere.
Agreement, page 2.
12. The tenant(s) will not allow on premises any excessive
noise or other activity which disturbs the peace and quiet of
neighbors. Landlord agrees to prevent other occupants of the
building or common areas from disturbing the present tenant(s)'
peace and quiet.
13. Landlord will not enter the premises during the time of
tenancy except to inspect, to make repairs. or to show the unit
to a future tenant or purchaser. Landlord will contact tenant(s)
before such entry in order to arrange a convenient time, but
tenant(s) will not unreasonably withhold permission. Only in
case of emergency will entry be made without prior consent.
14. No water bed. Only one car. No exotic animals; only one
cat or dog. No ill-behaved or noisy dog. No belongings to be
stored is teller, in attic, or in hallway.
15. Damage to premises, if discovered by landlord before the
end of tenancy, must be repaired or paid for by tenant(s), with
no more than a thirty-day delay, unless tenant responsibility
can be disproved. Plumbing fixtures clogged by tenant shall be
unclogged at his or her cost.
16. Dripping faucets and other malfunctioning! Shall be re-
ported by tenant(s) before they turn into major damages
17. Only the person, or persons, mentioned in the Agreement,
shall be housed in the Apartment.
18. On termination of this Agreement, tenant(s) shall vacate
the premises, remove all personal belongings, and leave the
premises as clean as they were at tenancy's beginning. The
landlord will be free to dispose of any articles left behind,
whether by dumping, selling or otherwise.
19. Wherefore We, the undersigned, accent this Agreement by
signing two copies, one of which is to be kept by the tenant(s) ;
the other by the landlord.
Landlord
/yam
Date of signature.
Tenant(e)
/YJ cY.t.t.�za�e`ja(/n%i.,,
Date of signature.
s -v-
ss
RENTAL AGRHTMHNT
Between Mogens V. Hermann, 50 Hawley Street, Northampton as
Landlord, and %zwoje.,f a .. e. ry e 4—e✓a422" ,
as tenant(s)
1. The landlord rents to tenant(s) a dwelling located at 37
Holyoke Street, Northampton, apartment /' and the following
furniture and appliances: i'f°r.-e 4l""t & �("'l
1t</c'tz.., a.: -z✓osA(ay.- -ri�. 6e.
2. The date for moving in is: //4-# //./ 9 BS
3. The rent for each month is $ 5/67 , to be paid on or be-
fore the first of each month, by check or money order at the
landlord's address, 50 Hawley Street, Northampton. The tenancy
that this Agreement creates is a tenancy at will.
4. A security deposit equal to one month's rent must be paid
by tenant(s) before moving in. It will be returned to tenant(s)
within thirty days of moving out, minus amounts due to land-
lord, whether by way of real-estate damages or otherwise. The
landlord will inform tenant(s) of the bank and account number
where the deposit is held
5. If a lock, or more, is requested to be changed, the land-
lord will be paid ten dollars per lock to do the job.
6. At the beginning of tenancy, the landlord will submit to
tenant(s) a statement of condition of the apartment, including
information about the color of walls, and damage previously
done, of such a nature that it might otherwise be imputed to
the present tenant(s). Tenant(s) must either present objections
within fifteen days, or suffer the submitted statement of con-
ditions to be considered fair and accurate.
7. Tenant(s)
name, and pay
the apartment
cost, by gas.
will register electric and gas meters in own
electric and gas bills. This includes heating of
in winter; the heating is done, at tenant 's
8. Tenant(s) will install, maintain and pay for a telephone
within a week of moving in, and will inform the landlord of
the phone number.
9. Landlord will arrange for garbage collection, and have
the driveway shoveled after major snowstorms. But snow shovel-
ing on porches, and sandind (if necessary) on external stair-
ways, as well as around car, will be tenant responsibilities.
10. In case of appliance malfunctioning, call landlord first,
at 586-2689. If emergency exists, and there is no answer, call
M.B. Cichy (584-4005) for plumbing problems; Joe's °lectric
(584-8046) for electric problems, and Bay State Gas Company
(584-2400) for gas problems.
11. No substantial alterations of the premises shall be made
by the tenant(s) without the landlord's permission in writing.
Statement of Cond. , Apt. A, 37 H1. , continued.
Bathroom: Wallcovering particle board with marble design till
height of four feet. Above that, clothbacked vinyl with yellow
design. Woodwork yellow. Prefabricated wall protectors above
bathtub. All fixtures work; all window panes unbroken. One
nail in wallcovering. Floor, congoleum, yellowish, good con-
dition. Cabinet, with mirror, belongs to landlord.
General: All doors and windows have locks on them.
The following items belong to landlord: In kitchen, a stove, a
refrigerator, and a white metallic cabipet. All in good work-
ing condition, except that the stove door is loose. In Room 4,
a tan floor rug. Finally, a movable wardrobe, with four small
screw holes in it, probably to be placed in Room 1.
May 14, 1985,
To tenants: If you agree with this statement, sign this paper
and return it to landlord within 15 days of receipt of the
paper.
P.S. : Your security deposit, equal to $315.00 (three hundred
and fifteen) is in Northampton Institution for Savings, ac-
count #02010079412.
l
Statement of condition
of Apt. 4, c3 7 N*oe2e Sit-te- /
Northampton, Mass. , as of / 3. 49 gd-
twfxxf:.+s:fe.t*n<x<x*:<x>s*<+x*<:+*+r+*.******x::+*n+f+:t.»*x*xx,
This is a statement of the condition of the premises you have leased or rent-
ed. You should read it carefully in order to see if it is correct. If it is correct you
must sign it. This will show that you agree that the list is correct and complete.
If it is not correct, you must attach a separate signed list of any damage which
you believe exists in the premises. This statement must be returned to the
lessor or his agent within fifteen days after you receive this list or within fifteen
days after you move in, whichever is later. If you do not return this list, within
the specified time period, a court may later view your failure to return the list as
your agreement that the list is complete and correct in any suit which you may
bring to recover the security deposit.
•xxxxx***** ************************************************max*-*
. I apologise for the pernickety details that follow. This
statement of condition has been made according to a book,
in agreement with the law (M. G.L. ch. 186, section 15B). If
I did not file a statement of this type, I would have no
protection against acts of vandalism, nor against the des-
tructive results of sloppy, inconsiderate or neglectful te-
nant behavior, of which I have seen so many examples.
Statement of Condition.
Room 1: Brown vinyl wallcovering with tree design; all windows,
except one, unbroken. Several small holes in ceiling, as from
hooks. Wall-to-wall carpet, bluish green, good condition, except
for cigarette burns near center. One 24x24" mirror stuck on
west wall. seven nail holes in walls. Woodwork white.
Room 2: Wallcovering clothbacked vinyl, tan random pattern.
Woodwork white. One cracked window. One nail in door jamb; el-
even other nail holes. Wall-to-wall carpet. bluish green; good
condition.
Room 3: Wallcovering brown panel, woodwork (doors and windows)
white. Windows unbroken. Twelve nail or screw holes. One dril-
led hole in floor, near vent. One 24x24" mirror stuck on wall.
Room 4: Wallcovering brown paper, with design like sackcloth.
One cracked window. Woodwork white; paint torn off in some
places, as if by tape. The room does not have a heating sys-
tem; is to be used only for storage in winter.
Kitchen: Wallcovering white linoleum with tile-like pattern,
to a height of about 50". Above that, cloth-backed vinyl, with
fruit and flower design. Floor rubber tiles, good condition.
All windows unbroken. Woodwork natural color with varnish.
About twenty chip marks on sink.
To: Ar. and Mrs. Robert a Lavallee ,
37 Holyoke Street , Northampton, :assacnusetts.
From: Mogens V. Hermann, Landlord,
50 Hawley Street , Northampton, Massachusetts.
Date : February 6, 1987.
Subject: You are requested to leave the premises you
now rent as my tenant , at 37 Holyoke Street, Northampton ,
Massachusetts. You have 14 days from receipt of this
notice to leave or I will go to court and get permission
to evict you. If you believe you are entitled to regain
as my tenant , you or your lawyer may present your case
in court.
I want to end your tenancy because you have not paid
rent for the month of February this year. As stated in
your Rental Agreement ' s item 3 , "The rent for each month
is X315.00, to be paid on or before the first of each
month, by check or money order at the landlord' s address ,
50 Hawley Street, Northampton. " This you have not done.
Since you have been my tenants for more than twelve
months , and I haven' t sent you a previous notice for
nonpayment of rent, you have a right to prevent termi-
nation of your tenancy by 1—ailing certified nail,
a money order for $315.00 , or a valn ck for the same
amount, within ten days after your receipt of ;,ills notice .
Sincerely ,
Landlord.
Hampshire, ss.
I have this day served the
named defendants by leaving the
Lavallee, and by leaving a copy
Lavelle of which this is a true
37 Holyoke Street in said North
Senlca S 20. 00
Cepy 2. 00
lintel ml. 2.40
Car use ml. 1. 20
LAU Service &
Mailing _
$ 25. 60
February 6, 1987
withinNOTICE on the within
original of said Notice to Robe:
of said Notice to Maureen
copy. Service made at number
ampton.
6.0&08 A x04/ 1, DEPUTY SHERIFF
• • n.S . In the mark.en this precept
It was necessary or mil m nfun automobil•
E nd I haw/ •norm map man oon.nem•
aa an..
mac` ali rL ., )
GEO7aE[G.S^L:7EQRSXCt,DEYQTY SHERIFF