The dispute arose in July 2006 when EPA inspectors conducted aninspection at Mayo's Boston offices and determined that lead paintdisclosure had not been provided to tenants prior to executinglease contracts, which violates the Toxic and Federal DisclosureRule. The properties in question range five communities inMassachusetts, many of which were constructed before 1978 and aresubject to the lead paint Disclosure Rule, according to an EPArelease.

The Disclosure Rule gives tenants adequate information about therisks associated with lead paint in particular rental units andrelated common areas so that they may consider the risks prior toagreeing to obligations under a lease contract. It was determinedthat Mayo failed to comply with the Disclosure Rule in regard tolead-based paint on window replacements which were in units thatwere then rented.

Taran Grigsby, general counsel for Mayo, explains, "When you owna building that was built before 1978, and you rent an apartment inthat building you are required to have the renter sign what iscalled a lead paint disclosure form. And it's a form where alandlord discloses if the lead paint was abated, encapsulated andhow are you complying with the lead paint law." The lead paintreport is then supposed to be attached to the back. That's theviolation that the EPA is alleging, that we had failed to have aresident sign the disclosure form."