Boards can sometimes be faced with problematic unit owners whose misconduct interferes with the other owners’ use and enjoyment of the condominium property. In some cases, these unruly unit owners’ actions are so egregious that they pose dangers to the health and well-being of other residents. A recent court ruling provided that – under extreme circumstances – a unit owner may be barred from the condominium property.

While a Housing Court order and an unpublished Appeals Court decision do not represent binding precedent, these rulings do provide support for a board to take measures to bar a unit owner from portions of the common areas based on their behavior.

In the subject decision, the Housing Court (González, J.) ordered that an owner, who was apparently engaged in rampant illicit activity within his unit and common areas, was to be barred from a brownstone condominium building in a tony South End neighborhood. 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). The Court’s ruling is the first known written decision holding that a board may restrict an owner’s access to condominium property based upon that owner’s misbehavior.

Michael Collins owned a unit in a building known as the Brownstone at Copley / West Newton Street Condominium. For years, Collins had been regarded as a generally pleasant, mild-mannered former employee of the Commonwealth’s court system. In or around 2017, however, things began to shift as Collins allegedly began associating with a crowd of troubled individuals. Collins – who was in his sixties at the time – allegedly allowed his unit and surrounding common areas to deteriorate into what has been described as a “vortex of chaos,” with open drug use, nudity and fighting. Indeed, a Boston Globe headline described the situation at the condominium as “an indoor Mass. and Cass” – in reference to Boston’s open-air illegal drug market.

In August of 2024, the condominium board filed an action against Collins, seeking a declaratory judgment that he had perpetually and habitually violated various rules and regulations of the condominium – including unauthorized rentals, renting less than the entirety of the unit, and maintaining a nuisance in the unit. The board sought an injunction that Collins be prohibited from accessing or living in the subject condominium unit as the “flop house” had gotten so out of control that the twenty-eight other unit owners living in the building could no longer sleep and feared for their safety. The civil action was also advanced against Collins’s husband, Schanwat Wilailak, who was allegedly complicit in Collins’s misconduct. However, the board was never able to effect service upon him.

On October 25, 2024, the Court issued a permanent injunction order enjoining and restraining Collins from (i) entering any unit in the building; (ii) engaging in any nuisance or annoyance that interferes with the peaceful possession or proper use of the condominium by its residents; (iii) 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 his unit; and (iv) renting or leasing his unit without permission obtained pursuant to the applicable rules and regulations of the Condominium. The Court’s order was served on Collins by constable a few days later.

Within one week, Collins engaged in rampant and egregious violations of the Court order, including the following:

• On October 30, 2024, seventy-one different people were observed and recorded entering and exiting Collins’s condominium unit to buy, sell or use drugs and engage in prostitution. Three of those individuals spent an hour loitering in the downstairs common area. There was a fight between two of those individuals, who appeared intoxicated, in the common area at 6:00 a.m., and two individuals were observed sleeping on the common area stairway in the early morning for at least two hours.

• On October 31, 2024, fifty-one different people were observed and recorded entering and exiting Collins’s condominium unit to buy, sell or use drugs and engage in prostitution.

• On November 1, 2024, fifty-nine different people were observed and recorded entering and exiting Collins’s condominium unit to buy, sell or use drugs and engage in prostitution. The common area hallway was littered with trash, scooters, bicycles and luggage for most of the day.

• On November 2, 2024, thirty-eight different people were observed and recorded entering and exiting Collins’s condominium unit to buy, sell or use drugs and engage in prostitution.

• On November 3, 2024, forty-seven different people were observed and recorded entering and exiting Collins’s condominium unit to buy, sell or use drugs and engage in prostitution.

• On November 4, 2024, sixteen different people were observed and recorded entering and exiting Collins’s condominium unit to buy, sell or use drugs and engage in prostitution.

Since the service of the Court order, police raided Collins’s unit on two occasions – each resulting in Collins and Wilailak being arrested along with several of their visitors and guests. After the order was served, feces and urine were also found in the common areas where Collins’s guests were sleeping. Furthermore, after the order was served, Collins and Wilailak disconnected the kitchen garbage disposal – causing it to overflow – while also breaking the shower mixer valve; both resulting in continuous water infiltration into the unit below, causing significant damage.

The Court entered a judgment in favor of the Board’s complaint for contempt against Collins that prohibited him from entering into the Condominium building. The Court further authorized the Board to change the locks to the building.

Although the Court initially did not award attorneys’ fees in connection with issuing the October 25, 2024, Judge González elected to grant attorneys’ fees to the Board given the totality of Collins’s actions both before and after the order. The Court awarded nearly $27,000 in attorneys’ fees to the Board.

Collins’s unit is presently listed for sale.

The only other known jurisprudence where a court similarly indicated that a unit owner may be barred from the common areas of a condominium is a recently issued unpublished Appeals Court decision. Arslen v. Slatkin, 105 Mass.App.Ct. 1141 (August 4, 2025). In that case, a unit owner, Ron Arslen, got into a physical altercation with another unit owner in the lobby of a Worcester condominium building. Arslen allegedly hit the other unit owner with “his fists, kicking [him] with his boots, and repeatedly hitting [him] with a crowbar.” As a result of the incident, the condominium board sent Arslen a letter demanding that he “cease and desist” occupying his unit as his conduct violated the provisions of the condominium’s rules and regulations. The Appeals Court determined that the condominium board could not require Arslen to vacate his unit because (1) the rules and regulations relied upon by the board were distinct from the condominium’s master deed and by-laws and, as such, could not provide grounds for restricting an owner’s use of his unit, and (2) the restriction on Arslen’s use of his unit was not reasonable. In a footnote, however, the Appeals Court provided that “[t]here were other restrictions available that the condominium could have reasonably imposed on the unit owner; for example, prohibiting the unit owner from using the condominium’s common areas except to enter and exit his unit.” So, while the Appeals Court concluded that a board could not completely ban an offending unit owner from the condominium property, they left the door open for a board to potentially limit a unit owner’s access to the common areas.

While a Housing Court order and an unpublished Appeals Court decision do not represent binding precedent, these rulings do provide support for a board to take measures to bar a unit owner from portions of the common areas based on their behavior. In an extreme circumstance – where the conduct of a unit owner poses a threat to the safety and well-being of other residents – a board would be well-advised to file a complaint, seeking a preliminary injunction, and effectively get a court’s “blessing” to have the offending owner excluded from condominium property. In the event that a board wants to take matters into its own hands – with violation notices – the board must be careful to be “reasonable” in the manner with which it dispenses discipline. As suggested by the Appeals Court in the Arslen decision, perhaps the owner can be prohibited from using the common areas except to enter and exit his unit. In any event, a board should always consult with counsel when confronted with the difficulties associated with a misbehaving unit owner.