|
|
|
Court of Appeals Makes Eviction Harder For Landlords
(May 2011) By Colleen K. O’Brien
For more information, contact Paul
Farquharson.
McDaniel v. Baranowski,
No. 64 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, May 4, 2011) | View pdf
In a recent landlord-tenant case, the Court of Appeals of
Maryland made it harder for landlords to evict tenants. The Court held that
landlords seeking to evict tenants via summary ejectment proceedings must
affirmatively plead and demonstrate compliance with local ordinances requiring
licenses. In this case, the Court held that the landlord, who failed to obtain a
multiple-dwelling license as mandated by Anne Arundel County Code, was not
entitled to initiate summary ejectment proceedings under the Maryland Real
Property Article against a tenant for failure to pay rent.
Here, the tenant rented an apartment from the landlord, and
soon after moving in, noticed many defects with the premises. Specifically, the
fuse box sizzled and sparked, causing the unit to lose power every day. The fire
department inspected the fuse box and advised the tenant to move out
immediately. A health inspector also cited numerous code violations, including
the poor condition of the electrical system, as well as the windows and the
kitchen countertop. The tenant paid the first and last month’s rent, but
otherwise ceased paying rent and vacated the apartment approximately three
months after moving in. The landlord pursued summary ejectment proceedings, and
the trial court permitted it, but the Court of Appeals concluded that because
the landlord did not have a license to operate a multi-unit dwelling as required
by Anne Arundel County Code, that he could not take advantage of the summary
ejection proceedings.
The Court of Appeals analogized this case to other
contexts where the failure to obtain a license as required by a local
ordinance renders a contract invalid and unenforceable, such as in
mechanic’s lien cases. A person who has neglected to obtain a license will
not be given the assistance of the courts to enforce the contract because a
statutory requirement to obtain a license is intended to protect the public.
The Court also examined the tenant’s Consumer
Protection Act (CPA) claim. To the Court, where the tenant failed to present
any evidence of actual damages, such as bills for medical treatment, loss of
wages, or cost of securing suitable substitute housing, she failed to
sustain actual damages as required by the CPA for the allegedly substandard
premises. Therefore, the trial court properly dismissed her CPA claim.
|
|
|