Last month, Mass Law Reform, Greater Boston Legal Services, South Coastal Counties Legal Services and the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School submitted an amicus brief for the case of Slavin v. Lewis in Norfolk Superior Court, representing six advocacy groups who serve survivors of domestic abuse. Amicus briefs, also known as friend of the court briefs, can be a key component of efforts to support low income survivors of domestic abuse. Amicus briefs are an opportunity to inform appellate courts on how their decisions may affect people beyond the parties in an individual case.

In this particular case, Mr. Slavin and Ms. Lewis are former romantic partners who lived together for about eight years. When the relationship ended, Mr. Slavin asked the housing court for an injunction that would forcibly remove Ms. Lewis from the residence they had lived in together, but which Mr. Slavin owned. He argued that the usual protections for tenants were not applicable here – because only his name was on the deed. Mr. Slavin’s motion was dismissed, and he then filed the motion in Norfolk Superior Court. The Superior Court denied the injunction and Mr. Slavin appealed, arguing that Ms. Lewis was a “trespasser”.

Both the legal services organizations and the advocacy groups for survivors of domestic abuse identified this tactic – seeking immediate removal as a trespasser and denying that a person has any other interests in their home – as one often used by coercive and controlling abusers. The joint amicus brief submitted by MLRI supported the Superior Court decision, stating:

Many abusers exert economic control over their victims by intentionally excluding their victims’ names from housing paperwork such as deeds and leases. Thus, survivors are frequently in the situation as the appellee here: facing threatened removal from a longtime home, without the security of a name on a deed or a lease.

It was vital that the Appeals Court have this context and recognize that their decision would have a widespread effect.

On June 16, 2022, the Appeals Court upheld the Superior Court’s decision denying a preliminary injunction to force Ms. Lewis to vacate the home. This decision means Ms. Lewis will not be immediately removed from her home and that she is eligible for the protections other residents have. Ms. Lewis can now continue to assert her rights to her home through traditional legal means.