## Facts

- Nine named tenants of Boston Housing Authority (BHA) housing brought a class action on behalf of all BHA tenants, alleging violation of statutory rights to “decent, safe, and sanitary housing.”
- The claims relied primarily on Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 121B, § 32 and ch. 111, § 127H, and asserted widespread State Sanitary Code violations in BHA units and common areas.
- The Housing Court found many apartments and common facilities to be substandard and in violation of the State Sanitary Code.
- Over nearly five years, the trial judge issued multiple injunctive orders and oversaw a comprehensive consent decree that included appointment of a master to monitor compliance.
- The master repeatedly reported substantial noncompliance with required repairs and management reforms.
- The trial judge found that a major cause of persistent noncompliance was the lack of willing and competent leadership by BHA’s five-member board.
- After lesser measures failed, the Housing Court ordered appointment of a temporary receiver to assume the board’s functions, subject to court supervision.

## Issues

1. Whether Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 111, § 127H(a) and equitable authority permit a Housing Court to appoint a temporary receiver for a public housing authority to remedy persistent sanitary-code violations.
2. Whether appointing a receiver unlawfully conflicts with statutory provisions governing appointment and removal of BHA board members, including Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 121B, § 6.
3. Whether a receivership for a public housing authority violates the Massachusetts constitutional separation of powers.
4. Whether alleged judicial bias or improper ex parte communications required reversal of the receivership order.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment placing BHA in temporary receivership, with a limited modification not affecting the core validity of the remedy.
- The court held that § 127H(a)’s authorization to grant “such relief or issue such order as it deems just and proper” supported a receivership where persistent violations continued despite prior injunctive measures.
- The receivership was characterized as a temporary assumption of managerial functions to secure compliance, not a statutory “removal” of board members under ch. 121B, § 6.
- The receivership did not violate separation of powers because it was a remedial, time-limited judicial measure enforcing statutory duties, not a judicial substitution for policy-making.
- Allegations of bias and ex parte communications did not warrant reversal.

## Legal Principles

- A court enforcing the State Sanitary Code under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 111, § 127H(a) may order broad equitable relief, including receivership, when necessary to remedy persistent violations and protect statutory housing rights.
- Receivership is an exceptional remedy, but it may be justified when extensive, less intrusive measures (injunctions, structured decrees, monitoring) have failed on a detailed record of noncompliance.
- A temporary receivership that displaces a public entity’s managers to implement existing statutory obligations does not necessarily conflict with statutes governing appointment or removal of officials.
- Court-ordered structural relief directed at enforcing statutory duties can be consistent with separation of powers when it is remedial, limited in purpose and duration, and subject to judicial supervision.
- Claims of judicial misconduct require a showing of material impact on the validity of the judgment; unsupported or nonprejudicial allegations do not justify reversal.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Judicial Court upheld a Housing Court’s authority to appoint a temporary receiver to take over BHA board functions after years of failed injunctive and decree-based efforts to correct pervasive sanitary-code violations, concluding the remedy was authorized by statute and equity, consistent with governing housing statutes, and not barred by separation of powers.


Perez v. Bos. Hous. Auth., 379 Mass. 703 (1980)