Hello, I'm working on a project under Massachusetts perception of a
landlord/tenant lease issue. There are some questions after the
following description. I would appreciate if you can help me as best
as you can.

On Jan. 1, 2003, Tom, Sue, Harry agree to be roommates. They get an
apartment together in Massachusetts with a lease which is stipulated
as "month-by-month."

There is a clause in the lease which says only 3 people will occupy
the apartment. However, there are 4 separate rooms in the apartment.
(The 4th room appeared to be a living room once.) At this time, not
one of the tenants is living in this "4th" room.

Tom, Sue, Harry are listed as tenants on the lease, but only Tom
acutally signs the lease. Also, Harry's surname is misspelled by 3
letters.

On June 1, 2003 Sue moves out. There is no name change on the lease.
Sue had informed the landlord she was moving out in writing. Now there
is only Tom and Harry.

On July 1, 2003 Tom says he's going away for 6 months. He will pay his
share of the rent while he gone. Now only Harry is left.

On August 1, 2003 Bobby and Santar move into the apatment. Santar
moves into the room once occupied by Sue. Bobby moves into the "4th"
room. Tom locks up his own room and leaves for 6 months. He gives
Harry a lump sum check equal to 6 months for his portion of the rent.

From this point on, Harry, Bobby and Santar pay their portion of the
rent directly to the landlord. None of them combine the money into one
payment. They each send in their own payment.

Bobby and Santar put their names on the existing lease and each sign
the lease. The landlord was not present during the signing. He was not
provided a copy of this "new" lease. However, as these new tenants
paid their rent directly to the landlord, their names and payments
became known to the landlord, by virtue of their individual checks and
names being sent to him.

On Jan 1, 2004, Tom arrives back from his 6 month leave. He now
occupies his own room. There are now 4 tenants living in the apartment
(Tom, Harry, Bobby and Santar). Tom pays his porition of the rent
individually and directly to the landlord like the others.

On March 1, 2004, Bobby moves out and Peter moves in. His name was not
listed on the lease. Nor did he sign the lease. He moved in on a
"verbal agreement" among all the other roommates.

The names on the lease are shown as "Thomas, Sue, Harry, Santar and
Bobby" with only the signature of Thomas. But Thomas, Harry, Santar
and Peter are now living the apartment at this time. Each pays his own
share of the rent separately and directly the landlord.

April 1, 2004: Harry moves out of the apartment, but did not inform
the landlord, but did inform his roommates through verbal discussions.
His room is vacant from April onwards. Thomas is now paying for for
1/2 share of the apartment. Peter and Santar still pay their 1/4.

March- August, 2004: Peter is periodically late with the rent,
sometimes by a couple of months. (Even before Peter, the total due for
the rent for the aparment ever since occupancy has been late by at
least 5 days.) A 14-day notice to quit was issued by the landlord and
"accepted/received" by Peter. None of the other roommates knew about
this.

August 15, 2004: The landlord had sent a letter addressed to Thomas
with details of the  14-day notice to quit which had been previously
"accepted" by Peter without any of the other roommate's knowledge. The
landlord identified he was frequently "lied to" by Peter about the
rent being sent. There is enough evidence in writing that specifically
identifies Peter as being a main influence on the landlord's decision.

September 5, 2004: Evicition notice received with the names Thomas,
Harry, Santar and Peter. Payments are in arrears of the current
month's rent plus 2 months of Peter's share of the rent. Peter sends
to the landlord his portion of the 2-month share upon receipt of the
evicition notice. Now, its just the current month due.

Questions: 

1)What effect will the "3 people" occupancy rule in the lease have
under the fact that 4 people occupied the aparment for more than a
year. Does that nullify the lease in any way? What about the
landlord's knowledge of this during the time 4 people where paying him
independently?

2) Does the fact that Thomas being the only one who signed the lease
make him the only one liable? What about the risk of those listed on
the lease but who have not signed the lease?

3) Does the fact that Sue and Bobby's name were left on the lease as
still being there involve them?

4) How likely will a credit bureau look at this incident if it affects
the credit history of one of the regularly-paying roommates? (ie:
ultimately reported by the landlord). Will the reporting be done upon
the filing of the evicition notice? On the judgement of the judge? Can
the landlord report the person listed on the lease, who has paid, but
not signed the lease? What are the ramifications on the person's
credit in this particual situation with roommates decribed above?

5) On the eviction notice, it states: "If the landlord does not file
the original of this form (Summary Process Summons and Complaint) on
or before the entry date listed onthis form, the court will not
schedule the case for trial" If the amount due the landlord is paid in
full before the entry date, does the landlord have the right to still
file this eviction notice?" (The reason on the eviction notice states:
"You failed to pay the rent as required and a 14Day Notice to Quit
Served upon you has expired")

6) Does the fact that Harry moved out in April 2004, with not
informing the landlord and not changing the lease, somehow get him
involved with the eviction notice? Payments to the landlord from Harry
ceased 6 months prior to the evicition notice being issued, although
Harry's name is on the notice.

Appreciate some help with these quesiton. A tip will also be included
on well-thought out answers. Thanks

Wow.  Thanks for a challenging and interesting question (or series of
questions).  Let me start my answer by detailing a few assumptions.
	First, you did not state whether the original month-to-month ?lease?
stated the monthly rent, or the start or end dates.  This is
significant in Massachusetts, as a so-called ?lease? that does not
include this information is not a valid lease at all.  (See Marchesi
v. Brabant (1959) 338 Mass. 790, 155 N.E.2d 808;
http://www.masslegalhelp.org/docs/04.Tenancy-FINAL.pdf, at page 39. 
Where the tenant does not have a valid lease, he is considered a
tenant ?at will.? http://www.masslegalhelp.org/docs/04.Tenancy-FINAL.pdf,
page 39.  ?A tenancy at will is a relationship created by a tenancy
agreement which is ongoing and has no defined ending date.?  See
http://www-ims.oit.umass.edu/~cshrc/resources/rights.pdf. 
Month-to-month tenancies are usually ?at will? tenancies, and not
leases.
Eviction procedures are slightly different for a tenant ?at will? than
they are for a tenant with a written lease.  I am therefore going to
answer the questions both ways ? on the one hand, assuming that there
is a valid lease, and then assuming that there is not.  In any event,
if there is a valid lease at all, it is only as to Tom.  The other
tenants are all ?at will,? as I will explain further below.

	Question 1:  What effect will the "3 people" occupancy rule in the
lease have under the fact that 4 people occupied the apartment for
more than a year.  Does that nullify the lease in any way? What about
thelandlord's knowledge of this during the time 4 people where paying
him
independently? 
	Answer:  In this instance, it doesn?t matter whether we call the
agreement a ?lease? or an ?at will tenancy agreement.?  In either
case, the ?3-people? rule has long since been waived by the landlord
accepting rent from all 4 people.  See Allen Park Assocs. v.
Lewandowski (May 8, 1989) Hampden Housing Court, 89-SP-9400-S;
http://www.masslegalhelp.org/docs/13-Evictions-FINAL2.pdf, note 119. 
It does not ?nullify? the lease.  Instead, the landlord has
essentially given up the right to enforce it.  However, even if the
landlord had not knowingly accepted rent from all 4 people, and
arguably had not waived the right to enforce this clause, it does not
appear from your scenario that the landlord is evicting the tenants
because of this violation.  The landlord?s notice only mentioned the
rent.  The tenants? violation of the 3-people rule doesn?t have
anything to do with the eviction here.

	Question 2:	Does the fact that Thomas being the only one who signed
the lease make him the only one liable? What about the risk of those
listed on the lease but who have not signed the lease?
	Answer:	Again, assuming that there was a valid lease at all, the
lease itself is only binding on Tom and the landlord.  They are the
only mutually agreed-upon signatories.  The fact that Bobby and Santar
signed the lease is meaningless, since the landlord was never advised
of this.  Quoting from
http://www.masslegalhelp.org/docs/02.Moving_In-FINAL.pdf, note 9, page
14:  ?A party's secret signature to a lease, unrevealed to the other
party, is not valid or binding. Henchey v. Rathbun, 224 Mass. 209, 112
N.E. 862 (1916).?
	However, that does not let the other tenants off the hook.  By taking
possession of the premises and paying rent, and having that rent
accepted by the landlord, the other tenants have created a tenancy ?at
will.?
	To see how this works, let?s look at the two categories of tenants
who are non-signatories.  There are tenants (Sue and Harry) who were
named in the lease, but never signed.  They have the written consent
of the landlord to stay (since the landlord signed the lease with
their names as tenants), but they never consented to the terms of the
lease by signing.  They are therefore tenants at will.  See
http://www.tenant.net/Other_Areas/Massachusetts/mrights.html; and the
Massachusetts Tenant?s Handbook at
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lat07.htm: ?A Tenant-at-Will is one who
occupies a rented premises without a lease but pays rent periodically
(typically monthly). The agreement for the Tenancy-at-Will may be
either written or verbal.?
	Then there are tenants (Bobby, Peter, Santar) who are never mentioned
in any lease that the landlord saw or agreed to.  However, they have
paid rent to the landlord, using checks bearing their names, which the
landlord has accepted and cashed.  When they first moved in, they did
not have any form of agreement with the landlord at all, making them
tenants ?at sufferance.?  That tenancy ?at sufferance? is converted to
a tenancy ?at will? when the landlord accepts their payment.

	Question 3:	Does the fact that Sue and Bobby's name were left on the
lease as still being there involve them?
	Answer:	By ?involve them,? I assume you mean ?involve them in the
eviction process.?  The answer to this should be No.  Remember, as
non-signatories to the lease, they are not bound by it.  They have
been ?tenants at will? the entire time.  Their tenancies ended when
they left and stopped paying rent.
Note that they are not named in the eviction complaint.  By law, you
cannot get a judgment of any kind against a person unless you give
them proper notice.  That means naming them in the complaint.  The
complaint is the means by which the court takes jurisdiction over a
person -- the court can't just award a judgment against somebody
without a complaint against them being filed.  See, for example,
Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4 -- "The summons
shall...contain the name of the court and the names of the parties; be
directed to the defendant...."
http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/mrcp4.html
Since they are not named in the summons, they are not involved in the action.

	Question 4:	How likely will a credit bureau look at this incident if
it affects the credit history of one of the regularly-paying
roommates? (ie: ultimately reported by the landlord). Will the
reporting be done upon the filing of the evicition notice? On the
judgement of the judge? Can the landlord report the person listed on
the lease, who has paid, but not signed the lease? What are the
ramifications on the person's credit in this particual situation with
roommates decribed above?
	Answer:	This is the toughest and most subjective of all your
questions, because there are no hard-and-fast rules governing the
?likelihood? of credit inquiries and reports.  But we can discuss what
rules there are, how credit reports are usually generated, and then
extrapolate to your situation.  So I?ll start with a general overview
of how credit reports are generated, and then discuss each of your
questions in turn.
	There are three major credit reporting agencies (CRAs).  These three
agencies maintain large databases of information, which they sell to
credit-using businesses, such as banks and credit card companies. 
Typically, the CRA?s agreement with the bank or credit card company
requires that the bank or credit card company provide information to
the CRA about its customers.  This information is how the CRA
generates its database.  This happens automatically, with the CRA
having electronic access to the bank?s or credit card company?s
accounts-payable system.  So if you owe a payment on a mortgage, and
it?s a month late, that information is automatically logged in the
bank?s accounts-payable system and uploaded to the CRA.  The bank
doesn?t make a special ?report? in your particular case ? it?s just
information that is in the bank?s file that the CRA has access to. 
See http://money.howstuffworks.com/credit-report4.htm.  CRAs also have
access to records of court judgments, and include those in their
reports as well.
	Most landlords don?t maintain such automated access to the CRA. 
However, many do subscribe to collection services.  Collection
services often do provide automated access to CRAs.  Additionally, it
is possible (although unlikely) that a landlord might report a
delinquent rental payment to one or more of the CRAs.  So to the first
part of your question:  ?Will the reporting be done upon the filing of
the eviction notice?? my answer is Possible, but unlikely.  See, for
example, http://www.aoausa.com/SECURE/mrLevictionreports.asp.
	IMPORTANT NOTE:  Just because the eviction action will probably not
show up on a credit report, that does not make it harmless.  There are
other kinds of reports where it will show up.  Many landlords contract
with screening agencies that have access to databases of court
filings, for example.  An eviction action all by itself ? without a
judgment ? will probably never show up in a credit report, but it WILL
show up in a database of court filings.
	The second part of your question, Will the reporting be done ?On the
judgement of the judge? The answer to that is probably Yes.  One of
the items that normally shows up in a credit report is any outstanding
money judgment against a person.  If any of the tenants gets a
judgment taken against them, that WILL show up in a credit report
pretty much automatically.  See
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/bcd/bcd_lenders4.asp.
	The third part of your question:  Can the landlord report the person
listed on the lease, who has paid, but not signed the lease?  This is
a little confusing.  You have stated that ?Payments are in arrears of
the current month's rent,? as of September 5, 2005.  Does that mean
that August, 2005, and September, 2005 are both due?  Or just
September?
	In any event, the answer is that the landlord can report a delinquent
debt, as long as his report to the credit bureau is accurate and
truthful.  http://www.fair-credit-reporting.com/fair-credit-reporting-act/fair-credit-reporting-1681s2.html.
 As of September 5, let?s assume that everyone but Peter is paid up
through August, with the September 1st rental payment due and owing. 
The landlord can report that Tom and Santar are four days late with
the rent.  I would find this very unlikely, but he can do it.  He
cannot report Harry ? Harry was a tenant at will, remember, having not
signed the lease, and has moved out owing the landlord nothing.
	Finally, you ask What are the ramifications on the person's credit in
this particual situation with roommates decribed above? Unless the
person ultimately has a money judgment entered against him, his credit
is relatively safe, for the reasons discussed above.
	
	Question 5:	On the eviction notice, it states: "If the landlord does
not file the original of this form (Summary Process Summons and
Complaint) on or before the entry date listed on this form, the court
will not schedule the case for trial" If the amount due the landlord
is paid in full before the entry date, does the landlord have the
right to still file this eviction notice?" (The reason on the eviction
notice states: "You failed to pay the rent as required and a 14 Day
Notice to Quit
Served upon you has expired")
	At the outset, even though you don?t specifically ask, I should
discuss whether the eviction is properly brought at all.  The landlord
is required to deliver the 14-day notice to quit to each tenant.  See
http://www.masslegalhelp.org/docs/13-Evictions-FINAL2.pdf, page 196;
and http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/186-12.htm.  It doesn?t matter
how it?s delivered, as long as each tenant receives proper notice. 
http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/housingcourt/housingquestions.html#6
Additionally, it is possible for the landlord to waive the notice to
quit by thereafter accepting rent.  See
http://www.masslegalhelp.org/docs/13-Evictions-FINAL2.pdf, page 202.
	You stated that the original notice to quit was given to Peter,
sometime between March and August of 2004.  I assume that everyone
continued to pay their rent more or less on time thereafter.  If the
notice was given in March, and the landlord accepted rent in April,
May, June, July, and August, then a strong argument can be made that
he has waived the Notice to Quit entirely.  However, if the Notice to
Quit was given to Peter in August, and then confirmed in a letter to
Tom on August 15th, then there is not much of an argument there at
all.
	So let?s assume that Peter receives the Notice to Quit in early
August.  Tom receives the Notice to Quit on August 15th.  You haven?t
said whether Tom revealed the contents of the Notice to Santar, or
whether Santar was named in the Notice to Quit.  The Notice to Quit
should have named all four people that the eviction action named.  If
Santar wasn?t named, and the Notice didn?t include a catch-all phrase
such as ?all other persons claiming any right, title, or interest in
the premises, presently residing therein,? or something similar, then
the Notice was ineffective as to Santar and he cannot be evicted.
	Now let?s assume that the Notice to Quit does name Santar, and that
Santar received it from Tom on or around the 15th.  So everyone has
received the Notice to Quit.  More than 14 days has passed, so the
eviction action is properly brought.
	Here is where the difference between an actual lease and a tenancy at
will is important.  What you are talking about here (stopping the
lease by paying in full) is called ?cure.?  A tenant may ?cure? his
default and prevent the landlord from evicting him, but the time
frames within which he may do that depend on what kind of tenancy he
has.
	A tenant who has a valid lease (remember ? if anyone has a lease,
it?s Tom only, and even he may not have a valid lease) may cure his
default after receiving the summons and complaint by paying all the
rent owed, interest on the amount owed, plus costs of eviction, on or
before the entry date.  So paying the rent owed is not sufficient. 
The costs of eviction include the filing fee ($110 in housing court or
$160 in district court); the cost of service, if any; and the cost of
buying the form itself (usually a very small sum).  Costs do not
include attorneys? fees.  See
http://www.masslegalhelp.org/docs/13-Evictions-FINAL2.pdf, page 201.
	For the at-will tenants, the 14-day notice should have included a
statement advising them that they could cure the default within 10
days of receiving the 14-day notice, provided that this is their only
Notice to Quit within the past 12 months.  If the 14-day notice
included such a statement, and if the at-will tenants (Peter and
Santar, and maybe Tom, depending on whether the lease was valid)
actually received the 14-day notice, then the time for cure has passed
and payment will not stop the eviction.  If the 14-day notice did not
include this statement, then the time for cure is the date of entry ?
and in this case, only the rent must be paid, not interest and court
costs.  See http://www.masslegalhelp.org/docs/13-Evictions-FINAL2.pdf,
page 201; the specific statute is at
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/186-12.htm.

	Question 6:	Does the fact that Harry moved out in April 2004, with
not informing the landlord and not changing the lease, somehow get him
involved with the eviction notice? Payments to the landlord from Harry
ceased 6 months prior to the evicition notice being issued, although
Harry's name is on the notice.
	As one commenter pointed out, Harry?s name is on the eviction notice
because that?s the only way for the landlord to be sure and get his
property back.  The other tenants-at-will are only there because of
their names on checks; Harry is there both because of his name on a
check and his name on the original tenancy agreement.  When he stopped
sending checks, that didn?t remove his name from the tenancy
agreement, and the landlord wants to make sure that Harry doesn?t come
back and claim a right to enter the premises because of that
agreement.
	However, that does NOT mean that Harry should ignore the eviction
action.  Harry should immediately notify the landlord in writing that
he is no longer a tenant there, hasn?t been for 6 months, was paid in
full when he left, and will voluntarily surrender any right to
possession of the property in return for a dismissal of him from the
eviction action.  Harry should not ignore this action.  He risks the
landlord getting a default judgment against him for any unpaid rent,
even though he is not legally liable to the landlord for anything.  If
the landlord refuses to dismiss Harry, then Harry must answer the
complaint and go to court to defend himself.
	NEVER NEVER NEVER ignore a summons and complaint, even if it?s
ridiculous, even if naming you was a mistake.  If you ignore the
summons and complaint, the court has no way of knowing that you were
named by mistake.  The court will simply take the complaint at face
value and issue a judgment against you by default.  Massachusetts
Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 55 ? see
http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/mrcp55.html for the rule.  To see a form
request for default, see
http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/housingcourt/forms/newcivilrequestdefault55a.pdf.

	I hope these answers are satisfactory.  Thank you for posting your
question, it was an interesting and challenging one.  Best regards.

---

Clarification of Answer by hagan-ga on 22 May 2005 14:25 PDT

Wow!  Thank you VERY much for the kind comment and generous tip.  I am
working on your additional material, and should have a full response
Monday, May 23.

---

Clarification of Answer by hagan-ga on 23 May 2005 11:35 PDT

Q1) Your answer to Question 4 included the phrase : "database of court
filings". Do you happen to have a Massachusetts web link / contact
person / resources which accesses this particular web link?

I think in this regard my answer may not have been clear.  When I
referenced a ?database of court filings,? I was not specifically
referring to an on-line database.  Many states do put their court
dockets and records on-line, but it does not appear that Massachusetts
is one of them.  Massachusetts offers on-line access only to appeals
court cases, not trial court or Housing Court cases.

There are commercial services that offer court record document
retrieval for a fee.  Lexis Nexis is one very comprehensive service:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/courtlink/online/ben_docretrieval.asp

There are also commercial services, specifically targeted to
landlords, offering to locate eviction records.

http://www.evictionrecords.com/state-eviction-records-public-record-search/ma-massachusetts-eviction-records-tenant-screening-landlord-public-record-search.html
http://www.landlordconnection.com/
http://www.rentgrow.com
are three such services.
It is these services that will reveal a tenant's eviction history when
there is no judgment showing up on a credit report.  Many landlords
use these services specifically to discover whether a tenant with a
clean credit report has ever had an eviction filed against him.

(2) When you stated, "an eviction action all by itself" are you
refering to the (Date of the) action by the Constable (Sept 7)? Is the
action The Entry Date listed on the Eviction notice (Sept 14) ? Or is
the action the scheduled hearing which appears on the eviction notice
(which in this case is Sept 26)?

I was referring to the ?entry date,? September 14.  Filing an eviction
action in Massachusetts is a three-step process.  First, the landlord
fills out the appropriate Summons and Complaint forms.  Second, the
landlord provides those documents to the constable for service on the
defendant/tenant.  Third, the landlord files the completed documents,
showing that they have been served, with the Court.
See:  http://massrules.lawyersweekly.com/pdfframe.cfm?fname=%5C0001%5FMassachusetts%20Rules%5C0004%5FTrial%20Court%5C0001%5FI%2E%20Uniform%20Summary%20Process%20Rules%5FRULEBOOK%5C20050221%5Frb9%2Epdf
It is that filing (called ?entry? in Massachusetts) that would show up
in a search of court records.

(3) Is it possible the "database of court filings" will include the
names on the eviction notice if the payment was made before the entry
date? If so, what are the [means to] rescind such names from the court
records.

You indicate that payment of the full amount of rent due was made
before the entry date.  However, note from my previous answer that
payment of rent due may not be sufficient, depending on what kind of
rental agreement and what kind of notice to quit we are dealing with. 
Assuming that these were tenants ?at will,? and assuming also that the
Notice to Quit did not include a statement of the tenant?s right to
cure, then payment in full should have halted the eviction action
before it was filed.  The tenant names should not appear in court
records.
If the landlord went ahead with the eviction action despite the
payment, then the tenant names WILL appear in court records, and there
is no readily available means to expunge them.  The only possible
method would be to bring a motion before the court under its inherent
power to control the proceedings before it.  Such a motion would be
difficult to win and would require professional legal representation. 
However, since you don?t indicate that the matter proceeded beyond the
payment of rent due, I assume that the landlord did not proceed.

Thanks again for the kind comments and generous tip.  If you require
any further clarification, please don't hesitate to ask.  I'll do what
I can.

The answer was outstanding. I have some further clarification based
upon your answer that I am hoping you could provide. I hope the
additional compensation in the form of a tip will elicit further
information from you.  1) Your answer to Question 4 included the
phrase : "database of court filings". Do you happen to have a
Massachusetts web link / contact person / resources which accesses
this particular web link? Also, you reference a "action date" You
stated in your answer to Q4: "An eviction action all by itself --
without a judgement...WILL show up in a database of court filings."
Given this information, here is additional information on the Eviction
Notice. On the upper right hand part it says "Entry Date (file with
Court by) September 16th." There is a stamp on the Eviction notice
which is with a Constable's signature dated Sept. 7. Payment to the
landlord for the entire amount stated on the Evicition notice was
received on September 14th. Tip Question: When you stated, "an
eviction action all by itself" are you refering to the (Date of the)
action by the Constable (Sept 7)? Is the action The Entry Date listed
on the Eviction notice (Sept 14) ? Or is the action the scheduled
hearing which appears on the eviction notice (which in this case is
Sept 26)? The payment was made before the Entry date of Sept 14? Is it
possible the "database of court filings" will include the names on the
eviction notice if the payment was made before the entry date? If so,
what are the rescindsuch names from the court records. Once again,
your answer will provide my research with a great deal of investment
in the subject matter I am writing about.

This is a very interesting question, not just from the price. I hope a
researcher will give you a complete answer, even if it refutes my
following comments.  There are questions about Massachusetts laws that
I will only indicate.

1)What effect will the "3 people" occupancy rule in the lease have
under the fact that 4 people occupied the aparment for more than a
year. Does that nullify the lease in any way? What about the
landlord's knowledge of this during the time 4 people where paying him
independently?

The lease is a legal contract between Tom and the landlord, allowing
Tom to let 2 other persons live in the apartment and recognizing that
Sue and Harry are these persons, but not restricting occupancy to just
them.
The landlord could have insisted that a 4th person was a breach of the
contract while that was the situation and at that time taken action,
insisting that anyone other than Sue or Harry must leave, the
responsibility of Tom as the only tenant party to the contract.  If
the landlord had done this, and Tom had not thrown the person out, the
landlord could have given 7 days notice as an ?other-cause eviction?.
Mass. Law question:  Whether landlord?s knowledge of 4 occupants for
more than 12 months abrogated his right to give notice on this ground?
(Immaterial to the case the way it is presented.)

2) Does the fact that Thomas being the only one who signed the lease
make him the only one liable? What about the risk of those listed on
the lease but who have not signed the lease?

Yes, Thomas is the only tenant party to the lease, the landlord has no
claim on anyone else whom Tom lets live in the flat.  Sue and Harry
cannot be evicted if a 4th person moves in.  Bobby?s and Santar?s
names and signatures added to Tom?s copy of the lease contract means
nothing to the landlord.
Question:  Are they binding commitments to Tom to pay their portions
of the rent?  Mute point, it seems, they did, so they can?t be held
responsible for anything else.

3) Does the fact that Sue and Bobby's name were left on the lease as
still being there involve them?

No, they were not parties to the lease, just recognized as acceptable
sub-tenants to Tom.  Sue advised the landlord that she was moving out.
 Bobby?s name added to Tom?s copy of the lease has no significance to
the landlord.

4) How likely will a credit bureau look at this incident if it affects
the credit history of one of the regularly-paying roommates? (ie:
ultimately reported by the landlord). Will the reporting be done upon
the filing of the evicition notice? On the judgement of the judge? Can
the landlord report the person listed on the lease, who has paid, but
not signed the lease? What are the ramifications on the person's
credit in this particual situation with roommates decribed above?

I pass!  

5) On the eviction notice, it states: "If the landlord does not file
the original of this form (Summary Process Summons and Complaint) on
or before the entry date listed onthis form, the court will not
schedule the case for trial" If the amount due the landlord is paid in
full before the entry date, does the landlord have the right to still
file this eviction notice?" (The reason on the eviction notice states:
"You failed to pay the rent as required and a 14Day Notice to Quit
Served upon you has expired")


The eviction notice is based on unpaid rent, not because of 4 persons
in the flat.  If the rent is paid prior to the entry date, the court
will not schedule the case for trial.
As I understand it, the ?entry date? is the date specified as when the
tenant may provide the court with his ?answer? to the charge, and if
all rents and charges are paid by then (in this story?s situation) the
eviction notice is cancelled (or whatever better word applies).
The eviction notice named all the known or presumed occupants, of
course, regardless of the fact that they were not parties to the
lease.

6) Does the fact that Harry moved out in April 2004, with not
informing the landlord and not changing the lease, somehow get him
involved with the eviction notice? Payments to the landlord from Harry
ceased 6 months prior to the evicition notice being issued, although
Harry's name is on the notice.

Harry is not a party to the lease.  Since he has already moved out,
the eviction notice is immaterial to him, but as named person on the
contract, the landlord had to include him in the notice.  Sue (also
named in the contract) had advised the landlord that she was moving
out, hence her not being named.

AND, here is a nice site on the subject: 
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:reTrVLs5K3wJ:www.ci.somerville.ma.us/CoS_Content/documents/Tenant%2520Helper4th_3_05.pdf+%22entry+date%22+%22eviction+notice%22&hl=de&client=firefox-a

Regarding the following section:

Bobby and Santar put their names on the existing lease and each sign
the lease. The landlord was not present during the signing. He was not
provided a copy of this "new" lease.

How can the tenants unilateraly create a new lease?  Leases come from landlords.

Back again,

It should be mentioned that the landlord did not serve notice to Tom,
his only party to the lease.  Giving the notice to Peter, whom he
already had grounds to distrust, was inadequate. he should have sent a
registered letter to Tom or presented the notice to him in person.  I
don't know if his describing the situation to him in his subsequent
letter "repaired" this.  I believe that Tom could claim in court that
he was never served notice prior to the eviction order, and thus avoid
the order being issued, but that would only delay things until the
landlord did give him - Tom - notice due to rents in arrears.
The landlord was savy enough to understand that now, with only 3
persons in the flat, he could not give notice on the basis of a breach
of the 3-person clause in the lease.  It remains Tom's problem if
Peter doesn't pay his share of the rent.

Returning the Question 4 about credit bureaus:

Since Tom is the only person party to the lease, the landlord would
only be justified to report about him, and could have been reporting
the delayed payment of rent all along, regardless of his knowing that
Peter and/or whoever were the individuals that were in arrears  (Tom's
problem, if he lets them pay directly to the landlord rather than
paying the total rent himself and collecting from the others).
But that is not to say, that the landlord might have reported Peter or
others for their late payments, which would have been wrong, as he did
not have a legal claim on them.  They could get that removed from
their record with the credit bureau. (The landlord doesn't sound like
the kind who would be making regular reports to a credit bureau.)
I could not discover if the court would report an eviction notice. 
The land lord could, of course.
The ramifications:  only Tom has a contractual obligation and could be
reported  by the landlord for any times the rent was in arrears, even
when he was away for six months.

Now I hope a legal beagle researcher will come snuffling along and
give you a real answer.

myoarin, 
I appreciate the great detailed insight you have provided as a
comment, and the hopes that a legal expert will contribute (offer
hyperlinks to Massachusetts legal cases, etc., based upon supporting
your observations). Also, Nelson, you have made a good comment. (which
may have been verfied by myoarin already).

It appears that no matter who's name is listed as an occupant on the
lease, including names being added/deleted (("unilaterly" as Nelson
observed)without the landlord's presence and signature) as occupants,
the fact that Tom's signature as the only one on the lease on the date
and in the presence of the landlord makes him responsible for paying
the rent. But because the landlord is aware (though previous
payments/discussions/original names as occupants), the eviction notice
by law must include these other names. Would this observation be a
fair assessment?

HI, glad to try to be of help.  The story reminds me of house on
Mass.Ave. I once lived in...

Yes, Nelson and I agree entirely:  Any change to a contract must be
noted on all parties' copies of the contract and be signed by those
parties (or legal representatives).  Such changes could be made in a
new document that amended the original contract, but again, copies
signed by all would have to be exchanged.

Bobby and Santar signing Tom's copy just shows that they are cognizant
of the terms of the contract.  I was questioning before (1st posting)
if that was a commitment towards Tom for their share of the rent, but
it is not, since the rent sharing is not mentioned in the contract. 
They may have thought they were commiting themselves.

The eviction notice, as you can read about on that website, gives the
landlord the right to get the people out of the apartment, after he
has proved to the court that he has grounds to do so.  If he left out
the name one of someone in the apartment, the eviction notice would
not apply to that person.

There is a lot of stuff about rental law on the web.  I was real lucky
to just happen on to that site.  Maybe you can find more.
As you know, Nelson and I are just commenters and cannot post an
answer, so I hope a researcher will come along and provide one
substantiated with sources.

Hagan-ga, 
You picked a good one for what seems to be your first time at bat!
I was releaved to find that I hadn't desiminated too much misinformation.

That sounds mysteriously like a law school exam fact pattern.  Hmm...

To hagan, et all you other researchers.
The refinement of my understanding of this matter was well worth the
investment. Thank you to you, all!