Massachusetts Roommate Dispute Over Utilities After Permanent Move-out Before Lease Ends

Location: Massachusetts

Hi all!

I’m looking for perspectives on a roommate/lease dispute in Massachusetts involving utilities after permanent move-out.

My roommate and I are both on a joint lease that runs through July 31, 2026. However, I am permanently moving out of the apartment on May 13, 2026 and relocating back to Texas. I will no longer reside there in any capacity after that date. My belongings will be removed, my mail will be forwarded, and my utility accounts are scheduled to fully close on May 13.

The disagreement is about whether I still owe utilities after May 13 even though I no longer live there.

The utilities clause in the lease says residents are responsible for utility charges “in connection with the use of all utility services provided to the premises” during the lease term or occupancy period, whichever is longer. My roommate interprets this to mean that because my lease technically continues through July 31, I still owe utilities through July 31 regardless of whether I live there.

My interpretation is different. I believe the “in connection with the use” language matters, and that once I permanently vacate, surrender occupancy, close my utility accounts, and stop residing there altogether, I should not still be subsidizing ongoing electricity/gas/internet usage by the remaining occupant. I am fully paying all utilities through May 13 and any final overlapping bills tied to my occupancy. I am not refusing legitimate balances tied to the period I actually lived there.

A few additional details:
• There is no separate roommate agreement about utilities.
• The lease does not specifically address post-vacancy utility allocation between co-tenants.
• The landlord has informally told (texted) me multiple times that she views my understanding as “common sense” and has discussed removing my portion of rent after May 13, though I have not been formally released from the lease.
• My roommate argues that because the lease does not explicitly create an exception for permanent vacancy, I remain responsible through July 31.
• I argue that the lease is broad/ambiguous and does not explicitly state that a vacated tenant must continue paying for utilities being used solely by the remaining occupant.

I’m mainly curious:
• From a Massachusetts contract/tenant perspective, does either interpretation seem stronger?
• Would a court likely view this as an ambiguous roommate allocation dispute?
• Does the “in connection with the use” language materially matter here?
• Does permanent surrender/vacancy usually change how utility responsibility is viewed between co-tenants?

Just trying to understand how this situation would realistically be viewed legally/practically. Thank you!