The Erosion of “Summary” Process in Post-Pandemic Eviction Practice
By Michael J. Louis
Issue: Summary Process Is No Longer Summary
For attorneys representing landlords in Massachusetts Housing Court—particularly those entering the forum for the first time or returning after an extended absence—the practice of summary process eviction has become markedly more complex, time-consuming, and procedurally demanding than it was pre-pandemic. The most significant takeaway for landlord-tenant practitioners is this: post-pandemic eviction cases, especially those involving nonpayment of rent, now routinely take far longer to prosecute than the system was originally designed to allow.
What was intended to be an expedited remedy for resolving possession disputes has evolved into a multi-stage, heavily regulated process shaped by expanded tenant protections, statutory reforms, and administrative changes implemented in response to housing instability during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
Rule: Summary Process Was Intended to Be a Quick Remedy
Massachusetts courts have long recognized that summary process exists to provide landlords with a swift and efficient mechanism for recovering possession of their property. Unlike ordinary civil litigation, summary process was designed to minimize delay, limit procedural complexity, and deliver prompt resolution. Appellate decisions have consistently described summary process as a streamlined remedy precisely because prolonged uncertainty over possession undermines both property rights and housing stability.
This foundational principle—that summary process should move quickly—provides the baseline against which modern eviction practice must be evaluated. When delays become routine rather than exceptional, the system no longer operates as originally intended.
Application: Why Summary Process No Longer Functions as Intended
Structural and Procedural Changes to Summary Process
One of the most significant procedural shifts in recent years is the transition from a single-stage proceeding (one-day/one trial) to the current two-tiered system, in which cases first proceed through an initial tier focused on mediation, and then advance to a second-tier date for judicial hearings and trial if not resolved. This restructuring alone has introduced additional steps, filings, and opportunities for delay that practitioners must navigate carefully.
Returns of Service (the constable’s proof of proper service) now warrant heightened scrutiny. Even minor scrivener errors—such as omitted middle initials—can delay the entry of a default judgment until a corrected return is filed. More critically, failure to file a proper Tier 1 Return of Service may impair later enforcement efforts. Some courts have declined to issue executions—despite previously allowing motions for execution based on agreement violations—solely because the Tier 1 Return was missing or defective. In these cases, clerk’s offices have refused to issue executions altogether, forcing landlords back into court to cure procedural defects that previously would not have been fatal.
Expanded Tenant Protection Statutes and Automatic Stays
G.L. c. 239, § 15 has further altered the pace of eviction litigation by imposing automatic stays when a Residential Assistance for Families in Transition program (“RAFT”) application is pending. RAFT is a Massachusetts program that provides emergency funding for those at risk of homelessness. In practice, this often requires landlords and their counsel to return to court multiple times simply to obtain status updates from RAFT-administering agencies. These delays are frequently compounded by incomplete applications, lack of communication, or expired eligibility periods.
Practitioners should advise clients at the outset about the implications of RAFT participation and assess whether the landlord is willing to engage in the process. Where participation is contemplated, counsel should proactively facilitate communication among the landlord, tenant, and administering agency. Ensuring that tenants have accurate and complete landlord contact information is critical; failures in this regard commonly result in stalled or “timed-out” applications that prolong cases unnecessarily.
Although courts may view serial or repetitive RAFT applications with skepticism, the burden remains on the landlord to demonstrate that such applications are improper. Clear documentation, timely objections, and a well-developed record are essential to obtaining judgment or execution notwithstanding a pending request.
Additional Statutory Protections Affecting Nonpayment Cases
Further complexity arises from new tenant protections enacted in response to broader economic instability. G.L. c. 239, § 17, effective November 25, 2025, establishes specific protections for federally employed tenants impacted by a federal government shutdown. Under the statute, a landlord may not terminate a tenancy, issue a notice to quit, or otherwise demand that a tenant vacate if the tenant provides notice and documentation showing that the shutdown caused a financial hardship. During the affected period, such tenants are shielded from eviction for nonpayment of rent until at least 30 days after the shutdown ends, with the possibility of an additional extension of up to 75 days by the governor. These protections further extend timelines and complicate case strategy in nonpayment matters.
Policy Context: Why These Changes Occurred
These procedural and statutory reforms did not arise in a vacuum. Wage stagnation, rising housing costs, and a persistent shortage of affordable housing have led to an increase in evictions, particularly for nonpayment of rent. Reports such as the Housing Stability Monitor: Massachusetts Evictions & Foreclosures document these trends, while recent analyses emphasize the importance of maintaining affordable private rental housing as a key component of addressing the Commonwealth’s housing crisis.
The legislature and courts have responded with well-intentioned measures aimed at preventing displacement and promoting housing stability. However, the cumulative effect of these policies has been to significantly slow the resolution of possession disputes.
Conclusion: Practical Implications for Landlord-Tenant Practitioners
Taken together, these statutory changes and procedural reforms have substantially increased the time, complexity, and cost associated with summary process litigation. For landlords—particularly small- and medium-sized owners operating with limited resources—the administrative burden and legal expenses often cannot be absorbed and instead may be passed on through higher rents or reduced investment in property maintenance.
The impact is especially pronounced for small landlords, who historically provide a significant share of naturally occurring affordable housing. Extended timelines, multi-stage proceedings, heightened scrutiny of service returns, and uncertainty around benefits and vouchers have made it increasingly difficult for these owners to manage properties efficiently or address chronic nonpayment. As smaller landlords exit the market, housing supply shifts toward larger, institutional owners or higher-priced alternatives, reducing affordability and tenant choice.
Landlord-tenant practitioners navigating this environment must adopt a proactive and systematic approach. This includes ensuring that all notices and service documents are precise and compliant, maintaining thorough records, making early and informed decisions about RAFT participation, and coordinating closely with tenants and administering agencies to avoid stalled applications. Counsel must also prepare clients for longer timelines, increased costs, and multi-stage proceedings, while staying current on evolving statutory protections and voucher-related obligations.
While modern reforms seek to enhance fairness and prevent displacement, their aggregate effect has transformed summary process into a system that is no longer summary in practice. Understanding—and adapting to—this reality is now an essential part of effective landlord representation in Massachusetts Housing Court.
Michael J. Louis is a Partner at Downing Van Dyke and previously spent 10 years in-house at the Boston Housing Authority, specializing in summary process actions, appeals, fair housing/discrimination defense, and Section 8 terminations. He has argued landlord-rights cases before the Massachusetts Appeals Court and Supreme Judicial Court, including landmark decisions such as Figgs v. Boston Housing Authority, 469 Mass. 354 (2014) and Boston Housing Authority v. Y.A., 482 Mass. 240 (2019). He is co-author of the Appeals chapter in Residential & Commercial Landlord Tenant Practice in Massachusetts (MCLE) and co-chair of REBA’s Residential Landlord Tenant Section.
