Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 239, § 2 (2026)

Jurisdiction; venue; form of writ

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 2. Such person may bring an action in the superior court in the county in which the land lies if the plaintiff seeks money damages and there is no reasonable likelihood that recovery by the plaintiff will be less than or equal to $25,000, or such other amount as is ordered from time to time by the supreme judicial court. Where multiple damages are allowed by law, the amount of single damages claimed shall control. Such person may bring an action in the district court in the judicial district in which the land lies.

Such person may bring the action by a writ in the form of an original summons to the defendant to answer to the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant is in possession of the land or tenements in question, describing them, which he holds unlawfully against the right of the plaintiff, and, if rent and use and occupation is claimed, that the defendant owed rent and use and occupation in the amount stated; but, subject to the approval of the supreme judicial court, the judge of the housing court of the city of Boston shall determine the form of the writ in the actions brought in his court. Failure to claim rent and use and occupation in the action shall not bar a subsequent action therefor.

The defendant named in a summary process summons and complaint shall not include any minors, and any such minors' names so included shall be expunged from any court record and electronic docket entry.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1982–2022 · leading case: Shea v. Neponset River Marine & Sportfishing, Inc., 437 N.E.2d 250 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Shea v. Neponset River Marine & Sportfishing, Inc., 437 N.E.2d 250 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982). · cites it 4× “G. L. c. 239, § 2. On the other hand, the Sheas argue that the exclusionary sentence of the old § 103 was mere surplusage and that its deletion had no effect on procedures in summary process.”

Meikle v. Nurse, 49 N.E.3d 210 (Mass. 2016). “239, § 1, and for recovery of monies due for use and occupancy, G. L. c. 239, § 2, for the months of May, June, and July, *209 2014.”

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Rosa, 999 N.E.2d 1080 (Mass. 2013). “Although the “separate *622 action” could be entered in the Superior Court pursuant to its general equity jurisdiction, see G.”

Gold Star Homes, LLC v. Darbouze, 49 N.E.3d 686 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016). “In addition, Marie alone initiated the Land Court action — Marcus had no stake in the note or mortgage — whereas Gold Star was required to name both Marie and Marcus, co-occupants of the property, in the eviction proceedings.”

Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 505 N.E.2d 904 (Mass. App. Ct. 1987). “G. L. c. 239, § 2, as amended by St. 1977, c.”

Cummings Props., LLC v. Cepoint Networks, LLC, 937 N.E.2d 974 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010). “Under G. L. c. 239, § 2, as appearing in St. 2004, c.”

Diplomat Prop. Manager, LLC v. James a. Lozano & Another., 102 Mass. App. Ct. 57 (Mass. App. Ct. 2022). “See G. L. c. 239, § 2. Second, one party cannot by anticipatory action prevent the other from benefiting from the attributes of summary process -- which includes "[s]peedy completion of pleadings, Page 66 expedited and limited discovery, an early litigation control conference,…”

DeSanctis v. Labell's Airport Parking, Inc., 1991 Mass. App. Div. 37 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1991). “G.Lc. 239, §2; Jinwala v. Bizzaro, 24 Mass.”

HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n v. Galebach, 2012 Mass. App. Div. 155 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2012). “G.L.c. 239, §§2, 3. See Lowell Hous. Auth.”

Pyne v. Interface Sys. Grp., Inc., 29 Mass. L. Rptr. 534 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2011). · cites it 3× “G.L.c. 239, §2. While there are no express limits on the scope of a summary process action, the Legislature has stated that “(f]ail-ure to claim rent and use and occupation in said action shall not bar a subsequent action therefor.”

Bp Prucenter Acquisiton LLC v. Saks Fifth Avenue LLC (2021). “G. L. c. 239, § 2; G. L. c. 185C, § 3; G.”

Bp Prucenter Acquisiton LLC v. Saks Fifth Avenue LLC (2021). “G. L. c. 239, § 2; G. L. c. 185C, § 3; G.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.