According to court documents, Michael Boutin moved into the Memorial Apartments in Chicopee on June 14, 2013. The complex, located at 100 Debra Drive, is owned and leased by the Chicopee Housing Authority (CHA).
Over the years, Michael began to clash with another occupant, Ramon Ortiz, who lived across the hall. Michael claimed that Ramon and his visitors made excessive noise, slept in the common areas, and smoked while coming and going throughout the building. Michael filed numerous complaints against Ramon with the building’s management and the Chicopee Police Department. But no action was taken.
To build evidence against Ramon, Michael started regularly filming him within the complex. Ultimately, Michael’s constant filming amounted to a breach of Ramon’s “quiet enjoyment” of his home. Accordingly, CHA took action to evict Michael.
Michael represented himself (pro se) at trial and lost his case. Rather than evict Michael, the court gave him the option to move to another apartment within the same building and submit to a psychological evaluation by the court clinic.
The housing court decision is attached below.
Michael rejected the court’s diplomatic offer and consequently CHA was authorized to take possession of Michael’s unit.
Undeterred, Michael filed an appeal.
The Appeals Court upheld the housing court decision in large part because Michael failed to articulate any viable legal arguments in his pleadings:
The tenant’s briefs, which we have reviewed carefully, do not contain a concise statement of the issues, a statement of the applicable standard of review, or any citation to the record or legal authority, as required by the rules of appellate procedure. While we acknowledge and accept the tenant’s representation that he did his best, the fact that the [tenant] represents himself does not excuse his noncompliance with procedural rules. Even with considerable leniency, we cannot discern from the tenant’s briefs precisely what issues he is raising on appeal and are thus unable to engage in meaningful appellate review. (Citations and quotations omitted.)
Despite this, the Appeals Court conducted its own review of the housing court’s ruling and found no problems that would justify reversal.
To read the full text of the opinion, click the document below.