← All cases
26H82CV00011Up to date

Lenox Farms Limited Partnership v. Abouelkhier, Dany

Housing Court·Metro South Housing Court·Last checked Jul 25, 2026, 8:03 PM·View on masscourts.org ↗

01— Where things stand right now

The judge ordered Dany Abouelkhier to move out of Apartment 905 at 550 Liberty Street back on June 12, 2026, finding he has no lease, no tenancy, and no right to be there. He hasn’t left, so the landlord has asked the court to enter judgment for possession and issue an eviction execution. Abouelkhier has responded with a stack of filings — a motion to dissolve the injunction, an appeal, and now (on July 24) a renewed motion to dismiss plus an emergency request to postpone the July 28 hearing because he says he’ll be in Cairo until August 19.

So everything now turns on the July 28, 2026 motion hearing and whether the judge grants the continuance.

02— The case in a nutshell

Lenox Farms owns an apartment building at 550 Liberty Street in Braintree. Dany Abouelkhier has been living in Apartment 905, and the landlord says he has no legal right to be there.

This started as a regular eviction case (summary process, filed December 2024). But during that case Abouelkhier himself testified that he is *not* a tenant, has no lease, and has never paid rent — he says he’s a “guest” of another occupant. That testimony blew up the landlord’s eviction theory, because you can’t evict a tenant who isn’t a tenant.

So in April 2026 the judge declared the eviction claim moot and told the landlord it could instead file this separate civil case asking for an injunction ordering Abouelkhier out as an unauthorized occupant. That’s this case, filed January 16, 2026.

On June 12, 2026 the court granted that injunction: vacate immediately, don’t come back, take your stuff. The court also noted an unpaid use-and-occupancy balance of $94,808. Abouelkhier hasn’t complied, and the fight now is over whether that order can be turned into an actual eviction.

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

The June 12 order was blunt: the court found Abouelkhier has no lease, no tenancy, no superior right to possession, and no realistic defense, and ordered him to vacate. It also gave the landlord a path — if he didn’t comply within 10 days, the landlord could ask for judgment for possession and an execution, citing *Dacey v. Burgess*.

He didn’t comply. On July 1 the landlord filed exactly that motion (Paper 30), with an affidavit saying he’s still there. On June 22 Abouelkhier had already filed a motion to dissolve the injunction (Paper 28), arguing the order is “preliminary in name but permanent in effect” — it evicts him without a trial, without a Rule 65 consolidation, and without any final judgment, which he says Massachusetts law requires before anyone loses possession.

A motion hearing was set for July 28, 2026. Then on July 24 — four days before — he filed three more things: a renewed motion to dismiss arguing he was never properly served with a summons and complaint (so the court never got jurisdiction over him), a limited opposition asking that his motion to dissolve be decided *before* the landlord’s enforcement motion, and an emergency motion to continue the July 28 hearing because he is flying to Cairo on July 26 and returning August 19 to care for his elderly mother after his stepfather’s death.

Notably, this second continuance request comes with the exact details the judge said were missing from the first one: dates, destination, itinerary, and the relationship to the deceased. He also offers an alternative — decide the motion on the papers under Rule 78, no hearing needed.

Separately, he filed a notice of appeal on July 13 from the June 12 injunction, and the record was assembled for the Appeals Court on July 16.

05— What's next

The immediate question is the July 28, 2026 hearing: does the judge continue it to on-or-after August 20, decide the pending motions on the written papers, or go forward without Abouelkhier there?

After that, the court has to sort out three stacked requests: the landlord’s motion for judgment for possession and execution (Paper 30), Abouelkhier’s motion to dissolve the injunction (Paper 28), and his renewed motion to dismiss for lack of service. He’s explicitly asking the court to decide his motions first and hold the landlord’s in abeyance.

If the court grants the landlord’s motion, judgment for possession enters and an execution issues in the ordinary course — that’s the paper a constable uses to physically remove someone. His appeal of the June 12 injunction is also moving forward at the Appeals Court, though filing an appeal does not by itself stop an order from being enforced.

06— Reading between the lines

Let’s be direct about the shape of this. The landlord’s position is simple and, on this record, strong: a judge already found after hearing that Abouelkhier has no lease, no tenancy, no consent to be there, and owes roughly $95,000 in unpaid use and occupancy. The landlord is doing ordinary, legitimate litigation — get the order, he ignores it, ask the court to enforce it.

Abouelkhier’s position is almost entirely procedural, and that’s worth understanding rather than dismissing. His core argument in the motion to dissolve is actually a real one: the June 12 order is labeled “preliminary” but functions as a permanent eviction — vacate, don’t return, remove your property, and here’s a ten-day path to an execution — without a trial, without Rule 65 consolidation, and without a final judgment. Massachusetts law (G.L. c. 184, § 18) does generally require summary process or another authorized proceeding to recover possession, and he’s right that *Dacey v. Burgess* involved a voluntary stipulation to vacate, which he never signed. That’s a legitimate appellate question, not nonsense.

His service-of-process argument is thinner but not frivolous: he swears under oath that no civil summons was ever served, and the docket does show returns for *hearing notices* rather than a summons. Under *Dumas*, a sworn denial does shift the burden to the plaintiff to prove service. The problem is his own conduct — he’s been filing opposition papers, appearing at hearings, and litigating this docket since February 2026, which is exactly the kind of participation that can forfeit a service objection. He knows this; he spends pages of his brief trying to distinguish *American International*.

And then there’s the pattern the courts have already called out. The June 12 order recites over 200 docket entries in the eviction case and quotes a Superior Court judge describing filings by Abouelkhier as “sand in the gears.” This docket shows the same rhythm: a wave of emergency motions in March, a combined 33-page motion in April, a continuance request filed the Friday before the June 1 hearing (denied for lacking any detail), and now three more filings four days before the July 28 hearing plus a second continuance request. Every one is styled as a “limited appearance” that waives nothing.

Here’s the honest read: the bereavement continuance may well be genuine — the death of a stepfather and an elderly mother needing care is real life, and this time he actually supplied the itinerary and details the judge said were missing. But the *effect* of granting it is another month of free occupancy on a $95,000 arrears. That’s the tension the judge has to weigh, and it’s why Abouelkhier smartly offered the alternative of deciding on the papers — it makes the request look accommodating rather than dilatory. Whether the court sees good cause or sees the pattern is genuinely uncertain, and I wouldn’t predict it.

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

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