Mass. Gen. Laws » Part III Title IV Chapter 255
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 255, § 25 (2026)

Garage keepers; effects of liens on motor vehicles obtained by fraud; etc.; lien for charges reimbursed by insurance company

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 25. Persons maintaining public garages for the storage and care of motor vehicles brought to their premises or placed in their care by or with the consent of the owners thereof and persons engaged in performing work upon or in connection with the inspection, reconditioning and repairing of motor vehicles shall have a lien upon such motor vehicles for proper charges due them for the storage, work and care of the same.

If the owner of such motor vehicle obtains possession of the same by fraud, trick or by check, draft or order upon any depository or bank which is not honored, the lien on said motor vehicle shall not be deemed to have been discharged and the lien holder may thereafter continue to enforce said lien until the proper charges due him have been paid.

In any instance where a lien arises under this section for charges due that are to be paid or reimbursed by an insurance company licensed in the commonwealth, upon written notice by the holder of such lien to the insurance company, the check or draft issued by such insurance company for such charges shall name the holder of the lien, together with the holder of a security interest as defined by ARTICLE 9 of chapter one hundred and six, as a loss payee, unless otherwise provided by law. The holder of a security interest that does not have priority over the lien established under this section shall be required to endorse any check or draft issued for payment of such charges by such insurance company over to the holder of such lien, whether or not such lien has then been released by the holder; provided, however, that the holder of a security interest other than the lien provided by this section, may, within two business days of notice of a request to endorse any such check require the owner of the vehicle to make said vehicle available for inspection at a time and place convenient to the owner and lienholder, to reinspect the repaired vehicle, and, as a prerequisite for such endorsement, the holder of such security interest may require the holder of the lien established under this section to provide it with an itemized list of repairs and other services which it certifies, in writing, have been completed or provided, and a copy of any repair certification form required by law to be provided to the insurance company.

Nothing in this section shall affect or modify the provisions of any direct payment plans implemented by an insurer pursuant to section thirty-four O of chapter ninety.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases, 1929–2015 · leading case: Hanner v. Classic Auto Body, Inc., 406 N.E.2d 686 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hanner v. Classic Auto Body, Inc., 406 N.E.2d 686 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980). “The defendants maintain that their conduct did not violate the statute because the repairman’s lien (G. L. c. 255, § 25, as amended by St. 1972, c.”
DeVito Auto Restoration v. Card, 2000 Mass. App. Div. 245 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2000). · cites it 3× “255, §25 lien enforced, and authorized DeVito to sell the Mercedes, pursuant to the express provisions of §26, to satisfy the judgment if Card failed to do so by a specified date.”
Haun v. LeGrand, 168 N.E. 180 (Mass. 1929). “It could not have been ruled as matter of law that Carley was driving the motor vehicle solely on his own account and by virtue of the hen authorized by G. L. c. 255, §§ 25, 26. There was no testimony to that effect.”
Limoliner, Inc. v. Dattco, Inc., 809 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2015). “See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 255, § 25 . And that finding supports Dattco’s contention that the loss of use of Liner 3001 was driven by a reasonable payment dispute between the parties and thus that the Magistrate Judge did not clearly err in awarding damages as she did.”
MCS Enter., Ltd. v. Henry, 2006 Mass. App. Div. 47 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2006). · cites it 2× “MCS refused to release the truck, relying on G.L.c. 255, §25 (statutory mechanic’s lien) to secure payment of its bill.”
North End Auto Park, Inc. v. Petringa Trucking Co. Inc, 150 N.E.2d 735 (Mass. 1958). “This is a petition to enforce a garage keeper’s hen under G. L. c. 255, §§25 and 26. The case was submitted on a statement of agreed facts, amounting to a case stated.”
Atwood v. Best Buick, Inc., 484 N.E.2d 647 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985). “We see no basis, however, for the denial of Best Buick’s rights under G. L. c. 255, §§ 25 and 26. Those sections provide for the establishment and enforcement of a lien for proper charges for storage of a motor vehicle brought to the premises of a public garage with the owner’s…”
Commonwealth v. Swan, 649 N.E.2d 795 (Mass. App. Ct. 1995). “Nor could the defendant be convicted of larceny of the vehicle in violation of Spartan’s garage keeper’s lien, G. L. c. 255, § 25. See Doody v. Collins, 223 Mass.”
Bay State Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Squantum Engine & Serv. Co. (In Re Bay State Yacht Sales, Inc.), 117 B.R. 16 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1990). “255 Section 14 would be perfected or enforceable against a bona fide purchaser who purchased one of the boats without notice or knowledge of the lien.”
Fancy v. Massachusetts Parking Auth., 36 Mass. App. Dec. 41 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1966). “300 (now G.L. c. 255, § 25) which gave a garage owner a lien for storage on a oar left with him “by and with the consent of the owner” the law was clear that one who receives goods from a wrongdoer without the consent of the owner has no lien on same for their care, custody, *45…”
Commonwealth Mut. Ins. v. Vigorito, 2003 Mass. App. Div. 26 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2003). · cites it 4× “93A, §11 through his use of a G.L.c. 255, §25 garageman’s lien to secure the payment of excessive fees.”
MCS Enter., Ltd. v. Henry, 2005 Mass. App. Div. 72 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2005). “G.Lc. 255, §§25,26. 3 Henry asserted that as he had never given his consent, as owner, to the repair work, Kenworth was not entitled to a lien on the truck.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
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.