2 counts dismissed in eviction fee lawsuit involving Greystar entity

This story was originally published on Multifamily Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Multifamily Dive newsletter.

A judge has dismissed two of the four counts filed against the owner and Greystar-affiliated operator of The Eddy, a Boston multifamily property, in a class action lawsuit from two residents who alleged the companies assessed illegal fees related to eviction proceedings. 

The defendants in the case, filed in Massachusetts District Court on Nov. 29, 2023, include New York City-based GREP Atlantic LLC, an entity of Charleston, South Carolina-based multifamily firm Greystar, and Eddy Owner LLC, the property’s owner, according to court documents. On Sept. 12, 2022, the plaintiffs entered a lease at The Eddy, which at the time was owned by East Boston, Massachusetts-based GEGC 2 New Street LLC, a party not named in the lawsuit. 

On Jan. 13, 2023, GREP and GEGC started eviction proceedings against the plaintiffs for nonpayment of rent, according to court documents. While the case was pending, the defendants assessed “eviction/legal recovery” fees against the tenants for a total of $652.

The eviction was voluntarily dismissed by GREP and GEGC in May 2023, but the charges remained on the account, according to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs paid the fees to avoid eviction, and were allegedly later given a $490 credit, which did not cover the full amount of the fees.

At the time the fees were charged, no court had entered a judgment in the case, no legal fees or costs had been assessed and GREP had not filed a petition for attorneys’ fees with the court, according to court documents. 

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act by assessing legal fees without any guarantee that they would be legally due, deceiving renters in the process. They also filed the case as a class action lawsuit, including any other renters who may have been assessed fees in this way, and demanded an award of $5 million, according to the civil docket.

Neither Greystar nor Eddy Owner’s legal representation responded to requests for comment from Multifamily Dive. 

On March 21, following a motion to dismiss the case from GREP and Eddy Owner, District Judge Angel Kelley denied Count II, in which the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had unjustly enriched themselves with the fee assessments, and Count III, a claim of negligent misrepresentation.

“[The] plaintiffs’ argument presumes their own interpretation of law to be the correct and prevailing one,” Kelley wrote. “Conversely, [the] defendants assert their own legal interpretation as basis for the assessments — something they were forthcoming about in their communications with Plaintiffs. … Because the legality of the issue remains unsettled, there is no version of events in which it would be appropriate to characterize defendants’ representations regarding the assessment of fees as ‘false information.’”

However, Kelley upheld Count I — the MCPA violation — and Count IV, a petition for declaratory relief. The court also denied the defendants’ allegation that the case was entirely moot since GREP and Eddy Owner had refunded the fees. “Defendants’ reimbursement does not represent full relief to render the action moot,” Kelley said. 

Case proceedings are ongoing and no trial date has been set, according to the court docket.

This case is one of a number involving the country’s largest housing owner and operator, which owns or operates almost 1 million multifamily units in the U.S. alone. 

The Washington state attorney general recently sued Greystar, eight other landlords and Richardson, Texas-based apartment software provider RealPage, alleging that RealPage’s revenue management software allowed housing providers to share nonpublic data and raise rent prices. 

The Federal Trade Commission and the state of Colorado have also sued Greystar for allegedly deceiving consumers about monthly rent costs by adding mandatory fees on top of advertised prices. This complaint, submitted four days before the end of the Biden administration, is listed as pending on the FTC website.