AMPS Leads a Favorable Appeals Court Ruling in PP Loop Investors LLC v. Castillo

AMPS continues to lead the way with another favorable Appeals Court decision for landlords in PP Loop Investors LLC v. Carlota Castillo (No. 2026-J-0081)

In PP Loop Investors LLC v. Carlota Castillo, No. 2026‑J‑0081 (Mar. 2, 2026), the Appeals Court upheld the lower courts’ denial of a request for stay of execution. Following a memorandum in opposition submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel (AMPS Law, PC), the Court affirmed the denial of the tenant’s request for a stay of execution because she failed to show that her newly submitted RAFT application had any “chance of success”. In this case, the Court noted that judgment for possession and damages totaling over $11,000.00 had entered against the tenant, which she never appealed. The only questions before the Appeals Court were whether the Housing Court erred in denying a stay and whether the statutory stay provision with regard to pending RAFT applications applied.

Although M.G.L. c. 239, § 15(b)(ii) (also known as the RAFT Statute) requires judges to stay an eviction when a tenant has a pending emergency rental assistance application, most Housing Courts have held that the application must be genuinely pending and have a plausible chance of success. Otherwise, as affirmed by the Appeals Court 75 Vine St. LLC v. Swanson, No. 23‑SP‑05533 (Mar. 21, 2024) (another often cited AMPS Law decision), the statute would produce an “absurd result” by allowing tenants to delay evictions indefinitely through repeated, meritless applications. In this case, the Appeals Court affirmed that the Housing Court properly denied the tenant’s initial request because the RAFT application number she provided was not actually “pending”, meaning she did not satisfy the statutory requirement to show a pending emergency rental assistance application. Although the tenant later filed a new motion to stop the eviction with a different RAFT application number, prompting a temporary stay by the Appeals Court, the Appeals Court ultimately found that the tenant did not qualify for the protections under M.G.L, c. 239 s. 15(b) because: 1) the new application had no chance of success, where the arrears exceeded RAFT’s maximum benefit limits; and 2), and the landlord was unwilling to enter a repayment plan or reinstate the tenancy, both of which are necessary for RAFT approval. Because the tenant lacked any likelihood of success on appeal and the statute did not require a stay where the RAFT application was futile, the court denied the stay, allowing the landlord to proceed with eviction.

PP LOOP INVESTORS LLC v. CARLOTA CASTILLO (No. 2026-J-0081).pdf

Download PDF • 31KB