A unit owners’ right to the peaceful use and enjoyment of the condominium, including their own unit as well as the common areas, is one of the most important protections intended by the governing documents of the condominium. When a particular unit owner behaves in a way that affects other unit owners’ ability to indeed use and enjoy the property, serious issues can arise, especially when their misconduct endangers the health and safety of other unit owners.
Removal of the aggrieving unit owner is usually very difficult, as they are entitled to their own property rights vested in their unit. Traditionally, the only option would be eviction after foreclosure on the unit due to the unit owner failing to pay fines assessed for their violative behavior (that is in violation of condominium governing documents). This could not be pursued unless 1) the unit owner actually failed to pay fines assessed in accordance with the condominium’s governing documents and Massachusetts General Laws chapter 183A, 2) the condominium initiated the fee collection process and a lawsuit was filed against the owner, and 3) the unit owner failed to pay the fees after the lawsuit was initiated.
However, a recent ruling by the Massachusetts Eastern Housing Court has indicated that a unit owner can be removed and banned from the condominium property if they are regularly and continuously engaging in extreme and/or illicit behavior. In Board of Trustees of the Brownstone at Copley/ West Newton Street Condominium Trust v. Michael F. Collins, et al., the defendant unit owner, Michael F. Collins, participated and allowed countless “guests” to partake in various kinds of egregious and illegal behavior that not only violated the condominium’s governing documents, but left the other residents fearing for their safety within the condominium as a whole. Board of Trustees of the Brownstone at Copley/ West Newton Street Condominium Trust v. Michael F. Collins, et al., Housing Court Dept., Eastern Division, Docket No. 24H84CV000402 (March 21, 2025).
Collins’ misconduct first began in or around 2017, when he started to have a significant number of “guests” over regularly that participated in illicit activity at the unit. Specifically, Collins, and his husband, Schanwat Wilailak, allowed dozens of people a day into their unit to partake in the selling, buying, and use of drugs, and to engage in prostitution on a daily basis. Such “guests” would ring doorbells of other unit owners at all hours to gain entry to the building, and they were often observed loitering around, sleeping in, or fighting in the common areas of the condominium. Further, Collin’s “guests” damaged the common areas and would consistently leave trash and personal items therein, including feces and urine on occasion. By 2024, Collins was fined over $9,000 by the Board of Trustees of the Brownstone at Copley/ West Newton Street Condominium Trust for such misconduct, and there were at least 54 police reports and/or calls spanning from 2018 to 2020.
On August 2, 2024, Allcock & Marcus filed a Complaint on the Condominium Trusts’ behalf seeking a declaratory judgement that Collins had regularly and habitually violated the rules and regulations of the condominium with his egregious misconduct, as well as injunctive relief enjoining Collins and Wilailak from “entering the condominium’s common areas and/or any Units at the condominium.”
On October 25, 2024 the Eastern Housing Court issued a finding that Collins and Wilailak did in fact violate the applicable rules, regulations, and bylaws of the condominium, and issued a Permanent Injunction Order enjoining and restraining Collins and Wilailak from 1.) entering any unit in the condominium other than their own, 2.) engaging in any nuisance or annoyance which interferes with the peaceful possession or proper use of the condominium by its residents, 3.) loitering in the condominium’s interior and exterior common areas or otherwise being in the common areas for reasons other than ingress and egress into their unit, and 4.) renting or leasing their unit without permission obtained pursuant to the applicable rules and regulations of the condominium. The Court did not award attorney’s fees but noted that failure to abide by the Order could result in the Defendants paying all attorney’s fees from the commencement of the action to the date of any subsequent rulings.
Almost immediately after being served the Permanent Injunction Order by constable on October 29, 2024, Collins and Wilailak’s flagrant misconduct resumed. The very next day, seventy-one different people entered an exited Collin’s unit to buy, sell, and partake in drug use and prostitution. Such “guests” again loitered around common areas, littered the common areas, and were involved in at least one altercation therein. The violations of the Court Order continued, and the police raided the unit on two separate occasions, resulting in the arrests of Collins, Wilailak, and their “guests” both times.
As a result of Collins and Wilailak’s blatant disregard for the Permanent Injunction Order, Allcock & Marcus filed a Complaint for Civil Contempt against the Defendants on November 6, 2024. In an order dated March 21, 2025, the Court found that Collins was in contempt, and ordered that he was prohibited, enjoined, and restrained from entering onto or remaining at the condominium property, including his own unit. While Collins could keep his belongings at the property as long as he paid his condominium fees (at least until further order), the Board of Trustees was also authorized to change the building’s locks to ensure Collins’ physical removal from the property. Further, the Court awarded the Board of Trustees all attorneys’ fees and costs accumulated from the initial proceedings on the matter to the date of the Contempt Trial, amounting to nearly $27,000.
Board of Trustees of the Brownstone at Copley/ West Newton Street Condominium Trust v. Michael F. Collins, et al. is the first known ruling in the state of Massachusetts allowing a condominium board of trustees to remove or bar a unit owner from the entire property due to their extreme misconduct. While a permanent injunction ordering the removal of a former unit owner from the condominium was issued in Trustees of Tuck Point Condominium Trust v. Robert P. Cohn, Mass. Super. Ct., Docket No. ESCV 2008-0586 (June 30, 2010) to protect the health and safety of residents, this case differed because the unit owner no longer had any legal interest in the unit due to foreclosure. The defendant, Robert Cohn, had been arrested on condominium property prior to the injunction for the possession of illegal narcotics, illegal firearms, and homemade explosive devices. However, sometime before the permanent injunction was ordered, Cohn’s unit was foreclosed on, and he held no interest in the property at the time of the Order.
Furthermore, while there was a recent ruling in Arslen v. Slatkin,105 Mass. App. Ct. 1141 (August 4, 2025) that denied complete removal of a unit owner from the condominium premises, this case is distinguishable from Board of Trustees of the Brownstone at Copley/ West Newton Street Condominium Trust. In Arslen v. Slatkin (an unpublished decision) the defendant unit owner, Ron Arslen, seriously assaulted another unit owner in the common area of the Kettle Brook Lofts Condominium. Thereafter, the Kettle Brooks Loft Condominium Trust sent a letter demanding that the Arslen “cease and desist” occupation of his unit, relying on violations of the rules and regulations of the condominium. Thereafter, the Trust began imposing fines for Arslen’s failure to cease occupation of the unit. The Court ruled that 1) the rules and regulations were distinct from the Master Deed and By-Laws, and could not be used to restrict an owner’s use of their unit and 2) such restriction of Arslen’s use of his unit was not reasonable. However, the Court did note that the Board of Kettle Brooks Loft Condominium Trust had other options of restriction available, including prohibiting Arslen from using the condominium common areas except to enter and exit his unit.
The circumstances of attempted removal in Arslen therefore differs from Board of Trustees of the Brownstone at Copley/ West Newton Street Condominium Trust, as 1) the rules and regulations at issue in Brownstone at Copley were not distinct but rather included in the condominiums Declaration of Trust, and most importantly 2) the misconduct at issue in Arslen was a one-time incident, whereas Collin’s misconduct was extreme, constant, and regular over a course of several years, which would arguably factor into whether unit owner removal from their own unit is reasonable.
While Board of Trustees of the Brownstone at Copley/ West Newton Street Condominium Trust may not be binding precedent, it provides support and indication that a board can seek removal of a unit owner that is engaging in regular and continuous extreme misconduct affecting the health and safety of other residents. While available in limited and extreme circumstances, this would still provide trustee boards with a removal technique apart from and more direct than the traditional eviction by foreclosure that is dependent on unpaid violation assessments.
For guidance on dealing with extreme unit owner misconduct and the options available, please consult with legal counsel.
For a copy of the Brownstone at Copley v Collins case [click here].
Written by
Kasey Birth
kasey@amcondolaw.com
Up Next...
