Just as landlords cannot shut off heat, water or electricity to force out unwanted tenants, they can't disconnect cable television, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday. Modern cable, often used for phone service as well as entertainment, pertains to a person's well-being, the court ruled.

The unanimous decision means Christopher Lally can resume his landlord-tenant case against landlord Lauren Flieder of Spruce Street in Concord. That proposition has Flieder "in a knot," she said yesterday. "I am just sick about this."

Lally and Flieder were friends when he first rented half her 8 Spruce St. duplex, she said. They both had kids in the local school, and he was looking for an apartment.

Flieder said she asked Lally to sign a lease agreement, but he didn't want to. So, she let him move in without a written agreement and rented to him on a month-to-month basis, according to court records.

She charged him $650 a month and even let him connect - illegally - to her cable so he wouldn't have to pay for his own connection, she said. In the summer of 2008, Flieder was struggling with her bills and told Lally she needed him to move out so she could move into his half of the duplex, she said.

Lally's portion was smaller, and Flieder intended to rent out her half for more money, she said. She gave Lally until June 2008, she said, but extended it to August 2008 when Lally told her he was having surgery.

At the end of July 2008, Lally paid his August rent and told Flieder he wouldn't be leaving until the following summer, court records said. Flieder responded by giving Lally an eviction notice ordering him out by the end of August.

According to court records, Lally stayed in the apartment through August. Two days into September, Flieder filed a case in Concord District Court seeking unpaid rent and permission to take possession of the apartment. Then she filed a case against him in Concord District Court for unpaid September rent.

Flieder said Lally responded by threatening to take her to court and to report her to the authorities for an illegal eviction. Fearing that Lally was going to contact Comcast and tell them about their illegal cable sharing, Flieder disconnected Lally's hookup, she said.

Lally demanded she restore his free cable, court records said. When Flieder refused, Lally filed his own court action against Flieder under the law governing apartment rentals.

Lally cited the portion of the law that prohibits landlords from disrupting a tenant's utilities.

Judge Gerard Boyle heard both Lally's and Flieder's cases in September 2008 in Concord District Court. Boyle found in Flieder's favor, ruling that cable television is not a protected utility under state law.

Lally appealed to the state Supreme Court, and both he and Flieder filed briefs they'd written themselves. Lally remained in the apartment until April, after Flieder regained legal possession of the apartment. He left all his belongings behind, Flieder said. It cost her about $200 to remove them and have the apartment cleaned.

Yesterday, the justices overruled Boyle and sent the case back to Concord District Court for further proceedings. The rental law, which is intended to keep landlords from forcing tenants out illegally, protects "any utility service," the justices said. That includes cable television and not just heat, electricity, water, gas, telephone or sewer, the court ruled.

"The specified utility services (named in the law) all pertain to the habitability of a dwelling or a person's well-being," read the decision written by Justice Gary Hicks. "Modern cable television also pertains to the habitability of a dwelling and a person's well-being. Indeed, many people access essential telephone service, the internet, news information and entertainment by way of cable."

Single page