Some businesses do not merely bend the rules. They build a business model around hoping consumers and tenants do not know the rules exist.
That is especially true in the overlap between landlord-tenant law, debt collection, and Housing Court. A landlord obtains or claims a debt. A property manager tries to prosecute a case. A debt buyer purchases defaulted rental claims. A nonlawyer attempts to use court process as a collection machine. The tenant is then expected to assume that because someone filed paperwork, the paperwork must be lawful.
That assumption can be costly.
Massachusetts law does not allow unlicensed debt collectors, nonlawyer agents, property managers, or debt buyers to use the courts as a workaround for licensing laws and the rules governing the practice of law. The courthouse is not supposed to become a debt-collection storefront.
A case I argued in the Massachusetts Appeals Court remains an important example.
Spaulding v. Lajoie: When the Court Finally Shut Down the Collection Machine
In Lorie Spaulding v. Brandy Lajoie, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 1120 (2014), the Appeals Court reviewed a Housing Court order that dismissed Spaulding’s attempt to collect a judgment debt she had acquired by assignment. The same debt-collection figure had previously appeared in LAS Collection Management v. Pagan, 447 Mass. 847 (2006), where the Supreme Judicial Court concluded that LAS and Spaulding had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law while collecting debts on behalf of landlords.
The 2014 Spaulding case arose after a former landlord, Nasir Khan, had obtained a judgment against a former tenant, Brandy Lajoie. Khan later assigned the debt and judgment to Spaulding. Spaulding then attempted to use Housing Court process to collect that judgment debt.
The Housing Court judge saw the problem. The Appeals Court agreed in substantial part.
The Appeals Court held that the judge was warranted in concluding that, despite prior admonitions, Spaulding continued to operate as an unlicensed debt collector and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by attempting to use court process to compel payments from Lajoie. The court affirmed the portion of the order prohibiting Spaulding and her business entities from engaging in debt collection, including judicial enforcement of judgment debt, unless licensed as a debt collector or acting through a duly licensed attorney.
That was the important point.
The underlying judgment itself was not erased merely because Spaulding could not lawfully collect it in that manner. The Appeals Court reinstated the original judgment. But the court made clear that the problem was Spaulding’s unlawful method of collection. She could not purchase defaulted landlord debt and then use the court system as an unlicensed debt collector or nonlawyer collection lawyer.
That distinction still matters in 2026.
A debt may exist. A judgment may exist. But not everyone is legally permitted to collect it, enforce it, or litigate it.
Buying Defaulted Rental Debt Is Not a Free Pass
One of the recurring tricks in debt collection is the claim that the collector is not really collecting someone else’s debt because the collector “bought” it.
Massachusetts law is not so easily evaded.
A person or business that buys or acquires debt already in default and then attempts to collect it may fall within the definition of a debt collector under Massachusetts regulations. The point is obvious: a debt buyer cannot avoid licensing requirements merely by purchasing defaulted claims and pretending to be something other than a collection business.
That is exactly why cases like Spaulding matter. If a business model consists of acquiring old landlord judgments, defaulted rent claims, or tenant debts and then trying to collect them through court process, that activity may require a debt collector license. If the collector is not licensed and is not represented by a lawyer where required, the collection effort may be unlawful.
The tenant should not assume the collector has authority simply because the collector has paperwork.
Unauthorized Practice of Law Is Still a Serious Problem
Massachusetts courts have long recognized that nonlawyers cannot practice law on behalf of others.
This rule is not a technicality. It protects the public. It protects the court system. It protects tenants and consumers from people who attempt to act like lawyers without the training, license, obligations, or accountability of lawyers.
In LAS Collection Management v. Pagan, the Supreme Judicial Court held that LAS and Spaulding engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in collecting debts on behalf of landlords. That case remains a foundational warning to landlord collection operators: you cannot run a debt-collection business through the courts while pretending the rules of legal practice do not apply.
Later case law has refined the consequences of unauthorized practice in summary process cases. The modern rule is not always that every unauthorized filing automatically destroys the case forever. In some situations, especially where the misconduct was inadvertent, a court may have discretion to allow a proper attorney to appear and correct the problem. But that does not make unauthorized practice lawful. It only means the remedy may depend on the facts, the timing, and whether the court views the violation as inadvertent or part of a deliberate attempt to game the system.
That is an important 2026 update.
A landlord or property manager should not read later cases as permission to practice law without a license. The better reading is the opposite: courts know this happens, courts have tools to address it, and courts may impose consequences where the conduct is deliberate, repeated, or abusive.
Property Managers Cannot Use Summary Process Like They Own the Property
The Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Rental Property Management Services v. Hatcher, 479 Mass. 542 (2018), reinforced a critical rule in Massachusetts eviction practice: a summary process plaintiff must be the owner or lessor entitled to possession. A property manager who is not the owner or lessor cannot bring an eviction case in its own name merely because the owner told it to.
The SJC also made clear that signing and filing a summary process complaint on behalf of another person or entity can constitute the unauthorized practice of law if done by a nonlawyer.
This is not paperwork trivia. Summary process is fast, high-stakes litigation. A tenant may lose a home. A judgment may enter. Money may be awarded. A record may follow the tenant. The system is already difficult enough for unrepresented tenants without nonlawyer agents, managers, or collection companies misusing it.
As of 2026, the safest rule remains straightforward:
The owner or lessor may bring the case if legally entitled to possession.
An individual owner may represent himself or herself.
A corporation, LLC, trust, property management company, debt buyer, or other entity generally needs a licensed attorney to appear and litigate.
A property manager who is not the owner or lessor cannot simply file the case in its own name.
A debt collector cannot avoid licensing and legal-practice rules by calling itself an assignee, manager, agent, or consultant.
The label does not control. The conduct does.
Chapter 93A Still Matters
Unlawful debt collection and unauthorized legal practice may also raise serious consumer protection issues.
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A prohibits unfair or deceptive acts and practices. In the tenant and consumer context, Chapter 93A can be a powerful statute because it may allow recovery of damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and in certain circumstances double or treble damages.
That is why unlawful collection conduct can become much more expensive than the underlying debt.
A collector who uses court process without authority, misrepresents its right to collect, ignores licensing laws, pursues consumers through unlawful methods, or attempts to enforce unenforceable agreements may be creating exposure beyond the amount claimed.
The threat is not theoretical. In real cases, Chapter 93A can turn abusive collection conduct into a significant liability event.
The Court Is Not a Collection Agency for Unlicensed Businesses
The core principle is simple: the Massachusetts court system is not supposed to be used as a collection agency for unlicensed businesses or nonlawyer operators.
If a landlord wants to collect a debt, the landlord must follow the law.
If a debt buyer wants to collect defaulted consumer or tenant debt, the debt buyer must comply with licensing and collection rules.
If a corporation, LLC, property manager, or collection business wants to litigate, it generally needs a lawyer.
If someone wants to use Housing Court process, payment hearings, contempt proceedings, supplementary process, or other judicial machinery to extract money from a tenant, that person must have lawful authority to do so.
The fact that a tenant once owed money does not legalize every collection method. A valid debt does not excuse unlawful collection. A judgment does not give an unlicensed collector a license. An assignment does not create a law degree.
Why Tenants Should Examine Who Is Actually Suing or Collecting
Tenants should look carefully at the name on the paperwork.
Who is the plaintiff?
Is the plaintiff the owner or lessor?
Is the plaintiff a property manager?
Is the plaintiff a debt buyer?
Is the plaintiff an LLC, trust, corporation, or business entity?
Who signed the summons and complaint?
Who is appearing in court?
Is the person attempting to negotiate, litigate, or collect a lawyer?
Is the collector licensed if the debt was purchased in default?
Was the debt assigned after judgment?
Is the collector using Housing Court to pursue payment hearings or contempt proceedings?
Those questions can matter. They can affect standing, authority, licensing, Chapter 93A exposure, and whether the case or collection attempt is legally defective.
Tenants often focus only on whether they owe the money. That is understandable. But the law also asks whether the person trying to collect has the legal right to do so in the way they are doing it.
The 2026 Lesson
The lesson from LAS, Spaulding, and later Massachusetts cases is not that every tenant debt disappears. It does not.
The lesson is that debt collection and eviction litigation have rules.
A landlord cannot outsource legal work to a nonlawyer property manager.
A collection company cannot practice law without a law license.
A debt buyer cannot purchase defaulted landlord debts en masse and ignore debt collector licensing requirements.
A business entity cannot appear in court as though it were a natural person representing itself.
A court may allow some defects to be corrected in appropriate circumstances, but repeated, knowing, or strategic violations can still have serious consequences.
Massachusetts law does not allow the machinery of Housing Court to be converted into an unlawful collection business.
Conclusion
The most abusive businesses often rely on confusion. They count on tenants not knowing the difference between a landlord, a property manager, a debt buyer, an assignee, a licensed debt collector, and a lawyer. They count on consumers being intimidated by court paperwork. They count on the assumption that if a claim is filed, it must be lawful.
That assumption is wrong.
Massachusetts tenants and consumers should look closely at who is suing them, who is collecting from them, who signed the paperwork, who owns the debt, whether the collector is licensed, and whether the person appearing in court is legally permitted to do so.
The court system belongs to the public. It is not a private collection desk for unlicensed debt buyers, landlord agents, or nonlawyers trying to dress up collection work as legal practice.
Questions about Housing Court, landlord collection abuse, or tenant defenses?
Check out Attorney Shivick’s Consumer Law Blog on YouTube.