GRAFTON – An eviction due to a mortgage foreclosure in North Grafton, approved by the Massachusetts Housing Court and scheduled for Thursday, March 5, will send a significantly disabled man and his sister into homelessness if it moves forward.
Esther Ngotho lives with her brother, Sam Gichuhi, at 10 Valley View Drive in Grafton. The home has modifications to accommodate Gichuhi’s disabilities, which require the use of a motorized wheelchair. He lives on one floor of the home, which accommodates his needs.
That floor is not at ground level. In the uncommon occurrence that Gichuhi leaves the home, he uses the backyard of the home, up a hill, to get to ground level and access to street level.
During eviction proceedings in housing court at the Worcester District and Superior Courthouse, at 225 Main Street, the housing court judge hasn’t appeared to consider Gichuhi’s disability in decisions.
In an effort to avoid her and her disabled brother becoming homeless on March 5, Ngotho, representing herself as the “next of friend” to Gichuhi, filed an emergency motion to cancel the eviction as life-threatening to her brother.
Ngotho decided to bring her brother to court for the hearing on her motion so that the judge could see the challenges Gichuhi’s disabilities present. A Grafton police officer and multiple Grafton firefighters helped dig through snow and ice to enable Gichuhi to reach a specialized van that accommodates his wheelchair.
The motion, made available to This Week in Worcester, appears to have merit.
Part of the motion relies on MGL Ch. 239 § 9, which allows for stays of judgement and execution for 12 months “in the case of premises occupied by a handicapped person.” The motion also argues that the court has already endangered Gichuhi’s life by failing to issue such a stay, as he has postponed life-sustaining radiation treatment for five months for uncertainty about his living situation.
The motion cites the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act in requesting reasonable accommodations for Gichuhi’s disabilities. It also cites MGL Ch. 239 § 10, which says that if the applicant for a stay of eviction “cannot secure suitable premises for himself and his family elsewhere,” then “the court may grant a stay.”
While the stay is not mandatory, § 10 also says that “upon application for such a stay of proceedings, the court shall hear the parties.”
After the effort to enable Gichuhi to get to the courthouse, and despite the apparent requirement to hear arguments on the motion, Judge Jeffrey Winik denied the motion without a hearing.
Suspended Due Process Rules
The Massachusetts Alliance Against Predatory Lending (MAAPL) issued a report in 2025, “Due Process Rights Rescinded in MA Housing Court’s Eviction Cases.” The report argues that in anticipation of the reopening of housing courts across the state in October 2020, after pandemic-related closures, “the Housing Court Division suspended for itself the Due Process Rules unique to eviction cases (Uniform Summary Process Rules).”
The official state website page for the Massachusetts Trial Court’s Uniform Summary Process Rules has the following note:
Note: Any provisions that are inconsistent with Housing Court, District Court, or Boston Municipal Court standing orders are suspended by Trial Court Administrative Order 21-2: Trial Court Order Suspending Certain Provisions of Trial Court Rule I: Uniform Summary Process Rules, effective June 15, 2021.
The report highlights 41 areas, over 121 pages, where the authors say the housing courts have eroded the due process rights of homeowners and tenants, as due process rights remain indefinitely suspended.
Grace Ross, a co-founder of MAAPL, says those due process rights remain indefinitely suspended.
Ross has assisted Ngotho in her defense against foreclosure. Ross also founded the Worcester Anti-Foreclosure Team, which provides assistance to residents and homeowners facing foreclosure and eviction proceedings.
Like Ngotho, most defendants in housing court represent themselves. The MAAPL report says that 75 percent of defendants represent themselves in housing court, while landlords represent themselves in 25 percent of cases.
In mortgage foreclosure cases, the plaintiffs are typically banks or investors. In almost all cases, these defendants have attorneys experienced in housing law..
