← All cases
24H82SP03575Up to date

Lenox Farms Limited Partnership vs. Kassem, Mohamed et al

Housing Court·Metro South Housing Court·Last checked Jul 25, 2026, 8:07 PM·View on masscourts.org ↗

01— Where things stand right now

This started as an eviction case over an apartment at 550 Liberty Street in Braintree, but the possession fight is over — the court called it moot. On April 15, 2026 the judge issued Findings and Order, on May 5, 2026 he denied Abouelkhier’s jurisdictional and Rule 60(b)(4) motions, and the landlord’s money claims plus the defendants’ claims were moved to a new civil docket (26H82CV00143).

Danny Abouelkhier, representing himself, has appealed to the Appeals Court (2026-P-0401), where a single justice is already questioning whether the appeal is premature. He is now filing motions asking the Housing Court to enter a final judgment or dismissal and to clean up what he calls an incoherent procedural posture.

02— The case in a nutshell

Lenox Farms Limited Partnership (the landlord) filed a summary process — eviction — case in late 2024 against Mohamed Kassem, the person on the lease for Unit 905, and Danny Abouelkhier, who was living there. The stated reason for termination was not unpaid rent but “cause”: the alleged presence of an unauthorized individual, specifically Sandra Frommer.

From there it got tangled. Kassem apparently testified he knew nothing about Unit 905, even though the landlord’s own lease, ledger and access records are in his name. Abouelkhier says the landlord treated Frommer as the actual resident for roughly 20 months — accepting her check, giving her keys and SmartRent codes, calling the unit “your home” — which he argues destroys the “unauthorized occupant” theory the eviction was built on.

Along the way the court struck Abouelkhier’s jury demand and ordered him to pay use and occupancy (about $4,552/month, per his affidavit). A bench trial was held April 6, 2026. On April 15 the judge issued Findings and Order concluding, among other things, that Abouelkhier is not a tenant and that the possession claim is moot.

What’s left is money: the landlord’s claim for rent/use and occupancy, and the defendants’ remaining claims, which were shipped to a separate civil docket on May 5, 2026.

03— Who's involved
04— What's happening now

The eviction part is finished. The April 15, 2026 Findings and Order determined Abouelkhier is not a tenant and treated the possession claim as moot, and on May 5 the court denied his motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and his Rule 60(b)(4) motion to void the Findings.

At the same time, the court transferred the landlord’s rent/use-and-occupancy claims and the defendants’ claims to a new civil docket, 26H82CV00143. So the money fight continues in a different case file.

Abouelkhier has appealed (Appeals Court No. 2026-P-0401), but that court issued a show-cause order on April 8 pointing out that he appealed from a February 17, 2026 interlocutory order with no final judgment on the docket — meaning the appeal may be dismissed as premature. His Rule 6 stay request and his show-cause response are under review.

His most recent filings (May 12 and May 29) ask the Housing Court to dissolve the use-and-occupancy sanctions and to either enter final judgment/dismissal or spell out exactly what claims and pleadings are still live — including the landlord’s still-pending motion to amend and motion in limine.

05— What's next

Two things are hanging: the Appeals Court’s ruling on whether it has jurisdiction over the appeal at all (if not dismissed, a new briefing schedule will issue), and the Housing Court’s response to Abouelkhier’s May 29 combined motion asking for final judgment or clarification.

Substantively, the real action is likely to shift to civil docket 26H82CV00143, where the landlord’s money claim and the defendants’ remaining claims now live. The docket doesn’t show a hearing date for the newest motions.

The most logical next step is a ruling from the judge on the pending motions and, eventually, entry of a final judgment or dismissal on the summary process docket — which would also fix the appellate jurisdiction problem Abouelkhier is complaining about.

06— Reading between the lines

The landlord’s case has a real soft spot and Abouelkhier has found it. If you evict someone because a specific person is an “unauthorized occupant,” it’s awkward when your own management emails call that person’s unit “your home,” cash her check, hand her keys and access codes, and coordinate maintenance through her for months. That’s not a technicality; that’s the factual heart of the eviction.

But the landlord appears to have pivoted smartly. Once possession stopped being the point — Abouelkhier is in the unit and was found not to be a tenant — the landlord moved to amend to add accrued use and occupancy and filed a motion in limine to lock the record down. It looks like a deliberate shift from “get them out” to “get paid,” and the court obliged by severing the money claims into a civil case.

Abouelkhier is doing something legitimate and something excessive at the same time. The legitimate part: he’s right that no Rule 58 final judgment appears on this docket, that his appeal from the February 17 order was flagged as interlocutory by the Appeals Court itself, and that having a mooted eviction case with pending plaintiff motions plus a spun-off civil docket is genuinely confusing. Asking the judge to say which pleading governs and enter judgment so he can appeal cleanly is a sensible move.

The excessive part: the sheer volume. Between February and May he filed at least a dozen motions, notices, affidavits and “notices of record conditions” that expressly do not seek relief. The court noticed — on April 17 the judge wrote that one filing “makes it clear that it does not seek affirmative relief,” and took no action. Filing paper whose stated purpose is to be on the record is a preservation strategy, but at some volume it reads as an attempt to make the record too messy to rule against him. The April 17 batch of one-line margin denials suggests the judge had run out of patience.

The strangest thread is Kassem. The landlord’s own documents put the lease, ledger and access credentials in his name, yet he reportedly testified he didn’t know about the unit. Abouelkhier has hammered that contradiction repeatedly, and the docket doesn’t show it being squarely resolved — which is exactly why he keeps asking who the court thinks actually owes the money.

One practical reality: the use-and-occupancy order of roughly $4,552/month is still in force, and his jury demand was struck for not paying it. He says he can’t pay; the court hasn’t relieved him. That’s the pressure point driving nearly everything he files.

A candid read, not legal advice.
07— The record, translated

Newest first — the plain-English reading leads; the court's wording follows.