SUMMARIES OF OPINIONS AND ORDERS

Case #10591- David Prakash & Naomi Richman v. John Burkett Civil #224465

On June 20, 2002 , Circuit Court Judge, Paul A. McGuckian, issued and Opinion and Order affirming the Commission’s Decision and Order in the matter of David Prakash and Naomi Richman v. John Burkett (Case No. 10591). Although the Commission’s Order had awarded Prakash and Richmond the refund of their entire $2,600.00 security deposit, they filed an appeal regarding the Commission’s denial of their request for attorney’s fees and treble damages.

Judge McGuckian’s Order states that, “The standard of review of an action of an administrative agency is whether a reasoning mind could have reached the conclusion which the administrative agency reached,” and that the agency decision “…must be viewed in the light most favorable to the agency.” The order further states that, “The reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for the expertise of those persons who constitute the administrative agency from which the appeal is taken.”

Regarding the Appellants’ claim for attorneys fees, the Court found that the Commission does have authority to award attorney’s fees, not in excess of $1,000.00, but only in those cases where the expense was incurred by a tenant in defense of a retaliatory or illegal eviction, which was not an issue in this case. The Court found therefore, that the Commission was correct in denying the Appellants’ request for attorney’s fees.

Regarding the Appellants’ claim for three times the amount of their security deposit as a penalty, the Court found that the Commission does have authority to make such an award based on consideration of the “egregiousness of the landlord’s conduct in wrongfully withholding all or part of the deposit, whether the landlord acted in good faith, and any prior history by the landlord of wrongful withholding of security deposits.” The Court found that the Commission’s conclusion that the landlord’s actions did not satisfy the “egregiousness” and “bad faith” requirements was a valid conclusion of law, and further found that the Commission acted within its discretion and properly interpreted the County Code in denying the Appellants’ request for treble damages.