If your family has ever moved a loved one into a Massachusetts assisted living facility and been charged an upfront “community fee” at move-in, a March 2026 ruling from the Supreme Judicial Court says that fee may have been illegal, and that the facility may owe it back with interest and penalties.
The decision in Ryan v. Mary Ann Morse Healthcare Corp. is the second time the SJC has weighed in on this practice, and the message this time is unambiguous: assisted living facilities cannot extract vague, undocumented upfront charges from new residents simply because they can get away with it.
What Happened at Heritage at Framingham
Heritage at Framingham, operated by Mary Ann Morse Healthcare Corporation, charged new residents a one-time “community fee” upon admission. The facility described the fee as covering upfront staff administrative costs and initial onboarding services. It did not itemize what specific services the fee funded, did not maintain records tying the fee to any particular service, and did not provide residents or their families with a breakdown of how the money was used.
James Ryan, a resident, sued under the Massachusetts security deposit statute, M.G.L. c. 186, § 15B, which limits what landlords and residential facility operators can collect from residents at or before move-in. The SJC had already ruled in the original Ryan v. Mary Ann Morse decision in 2019 that community fees charged by assisted living residences violate the security deposit statute unless they are tied to specific services that are permitted under the assisted living statute and actually provided to the resident.
On remand, the Superior Court applied that framework, found that Heritage’s fee was not adequately tied to any specific permitted service, and granted summary judgment for Ryan. Heritage appealed, arguing the lower court had misapplied the 2019 ruling.
What the SJC Said This Time
The SJC affirmed the Superior Court’s ruling against Heritage in full. The court found that Heritage’s failure to maintain records tying the community fee to specific assisted living services was not a technicality that could be overlooked. A facility cannot collect an undifferentiated upfront charge, fail to document what it was for, and then claim the benefit of an exception designed for fees that fund specific, identifiable services.
The court’s language was pointed. An amicus brief from the Dignity Alliance Massachusetts described the fee as a “junk fee” that preys on vulnerable consumers at an especially stressful and disorienting time, when families are often making rushed decisions under emotional pressure and have limited bargaining power. The SJC’s ruling gave that characterization legal teeth.
The practical consequence for Heritage is significant. Under the security deposit statute, a facility that wrongfully collects a prohibited fee must return it with interest, and a resident who prevails is entitled to recover actual damages, up to three months’ rent, and reasonable attorney’s fees.
Why This Matters Beyond One Facility
Community fees at move-in are standard practice across the Massachusetts assisted living industry. Facilities routinely charge anywhere from a few hundred to several thousand dollars as a condition of admission, often framed as covering administrative processing, orientation, or initial care planning. Most families pay without question, not knowing the practice has been legally contested for years or that the SJC has now twice ruled that these fees are only permissible in narrow circumstances.
The Ryan ruling does not eliminate community fees entirely. A facility can lawfully charge an upfront fee if it is specifically tied to distinct assisted living services permitted under M.G.L. c. 19D, the fee is documented, the services are actually provided, and the facility can demonstrate the connection between the fee and the services. What it cannot do is collect a lump sum at move-in, call it a community fee, and leave families with no accounting of what it covered.
This ruling also arrives at a moment when Massachusetts is moving to strengthen oversight of assisted living facilities more broadly. As I wrote in April, Attorney General Andrea Campbell has proposed the first-ever consumer protection regulations for assisted living residences, with a public comment period that recently closed. Those proposed rules would require facilities to itemize all fees in service agreements, provide advance notice of any increases, and prohibit charges for services the resident did not agree to. The Ryan decision reinforces exactly why those regulations are needed.
What Families Can Do
If your family paid a community fee to a Massachusetts assisted living facility in connection with a loved one’s admission, it is worth understanding whether that fee complied with the standards the SJC has now articulated twice. Key questions include whether the facility provided any written explanation of what specific services the fee funded, whether those services were actually delivered, and whether the fee was collected as a condition of admission without any itemization.
Families whose loved ones have already left a facility, or whose loved ones have passed away, may still have claims depending on when the fee was paid and the applicable limitations period. These cases are fact-specific and the analysis is not always straightforward, but the legal framework established by the SJC is now clear.
If you have concerns about fees charged by a Massachusetts assisted living facility, or about the quality of care your loved one is receiving, contact Weigand Law at 508-775-3118 or email [email protected] for a free consultation.
Attorney Blair E. Weigand — Helping those with legal questions for 35 years and counting.