Blackett v. Olanoff: Landlord Liability and Constructive Eviction

In Blackett v. Olanoff, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a landlord who has the contractual power to stop a noise source but fails to use it breaches the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, and the affected residential tenants may treat that breach as a constructive eviction and walk away from the lease without owing further rent.¹

What Happened in the Case

The same landlord owned a residential apartment building and a cocktail lounge located close by. The lounge ran loud music and drew large crowds late into the night. Inside the apartments, the sound was heavy enough that tenants struggled to hold a conversation or sleep. The disturbances were frequent and lasted for hours at a stretch. Eventually the tenants moved out and stopped paying rent, and the landlord sued.¹

Why the Landlord’s Control Mattered

The decisive fact was not that the noise existed, but that the landlord had the legal tools to stop it. The commercial lease with the lounge required that entertainment be conducted so it could not be heard outside the premises or disturb the residential tenants. The landlord therefore held the right to demand quiet and enforce it, and did not.¹

The court reasoned that the disturbance was a natural and foreseeable consequence of letting the lounge operate next to homes without enforcing the noise clause. That framing matters as a limit as much as a rule. A landlord is not automatically responsible for every noisy neighbor. Liability attaches when the landlord actually has the authority to intervene and does not.¹

The Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment

Massachusetts residential leases carry an implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, meaning a tenant has the right to peaceably possess and use the home. The covenant applies whether or not the written lease spells it out. It protects tenants against substantial and serious interference with the reasonable use of the property. In Blackett, the covenant supplied the underlying duty the landlord breached by permitting the lounge to keep operating as it did.¹

Constructive Eviction and What the Tenants Recovered

Constructive eviction is what happens when a landlord’s act or omission makes the property unfit for its purpose, forcing the tenant to leave. To establish it, the tenant generally must show:¹

An act or omission by the landlord that substantially deprives the tenant of the use and enjoyment of the property.
Actual vacating of the premises by the tenant.
Vacating within a reasonable time after the problem begins.

The Blackett tenants met all three. The noise was severe enough to substantially interfere with living in the apartments, they moved out, and they did so within a reasonable window. That was enough to justify treating the lease as ended. They were relieved of the obligation to pay future rent and were not held in breach.¹²

Why the Ruling Still Matters

The lasting significance of Blackett v. Olanoff is the link it draws between control and responsibility. A landlord who profits from a commercial tenant cannot ignore what that tenant does to the residents next door when the lease itself gives the landlord the power to intervene. Silence in the face of that power becomes a breach. Where the landlord has no such authority, the case does not reach; where the authority exists and goes unused, tenants have a route out of the lease and off the hook for rent.¹

1
Justia. Blackett v. Olanoff
2
Justia. Westland Housing Corp. v. Scott