Landlord Tenant Summaries of Decisions and Orders
Maintenance Cases

This page contains summaries of decisions and orders for maintenance cases.  To view the summary, click on the Case Number.  To view the complete Decision & Order, click on the case number within the summary.

Case #:  26638, Norma Guardado and Etifanoe Mendoza v. Foxhall Apartments
Date:  January 17, 2007
Subject:  Maintenance/Reduction in Service/Bedbug Infestation
Summary of Complaint:  Norma Guardado and Etifanoe Mendoza (“Complainants”), filed a complaint in which they alleged that their landlord, Foxhall Apartments (“Respondent”) and its management agent, Commodore Management Company, Inc. (“Commodore”): (1) failed to maintain their Apartment in a clean, safe and sanitary condition, free of roaches, mice and bedbugs, and free of electrical defects; (2) breached their lease agreement by failing to make needed and necessary repairs to the Apartment; and (3) assessed unjust charges against their $400.00 security deposit, plus $24.00 accrued interest, after the termination of their tenancy.

The Respondent contended that: (1) the Complainants did not complain about maintenance problems or rodent or vermin infestation until approximately 6 weeks before they vacated; and (2) the Complainants damaged the Apartment in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy, and the cost incurred to repair that damage exceeded the amount of the Complainants’ security deposit plus interest.

The Complainants were requesting an Order from the Commission directing the Respondent to: (1) refund their entire security deposit ($400.00) plus accrued interest ($24.00); (2) provide “a refund of 40% of each month’s rent which was a direct result of the reduction in value of the leasehold during the period the unit was uninhabitable; (3) reimburse them for financial losses in the amount of $2,549.00, including but not limited to moving expenses and loss of personal property; and (4) reimburse them $400.00 for a mattress discarded due to the bedbug infestation.

Findings:  The Commission found that: (1) Complainants failed to notify the Respondent or Commodore regarding an infestation of bedbugs in their Apartment until approximately 6 weeks before they vacated; (2) Commodore immediately responded to the Complainants’ notification and scheduled a series of treatments to remedy the problem; (3) Respondent and/or Commodore were not negligent in responding to maintenance requests from the Complainants during their tenancy, and did not breach the Lease with the Complainants or cause a defective tenancy regarding maintenance of the Apartment during their tenancy, and therefore, the Complainants are not entitled to a refund of rent; (4) Complainants failed to present any documentary evidence that they had experienced any loss or incurred any expense to repair or replace personal belongings or furnishings alleged to have been damaged or destroyed as a result of the infestation of bedbugs in the Apartment, and therefore, Complainants’ claim for “reimbursement of financial losses in the amount of $2,549.00, including but not limited to moving expenses and loss of personal property,” was dismissed; (5) the Complainants damaged the carpet in the Apartment in excess of ordinary wear and tear (bleach stains) during their tenancy, and that the Respondent and/or Commodore incurred actual expense to replace the damaged carpet after the termination of their tenancy in the amount of $898.77; (6) at the time the Complainants vacated, the carpet in the Apartment was approximately 2 years old, and as a result, the Respondent and/or Commodore were within their right to assess the pro rata amount of $589.20 against the Complainants’ security deposit for carpet replacement, which sum exceeded the amount of the Complainants’ security deposit plus accrued interest; and (7) the Commission chose not to make any findings regarding the other charges made by the Respondent and/or Commodore against the Complainants after the termination of their tenancy.

The Order:  The Commission ordered that the complainant, Case No. 26638, be DISMISSED.

Case #:  27732, Temo Buliro v. Jeffrey Holbrook
Date:  May 1, 2007
Subject:  Maintenance/Reduction in Service
Summary of Complaint:  Temo Buliro (“Complainant”), filed a complaint in which she alleged that her landlord, Jeffrey Holbrook (“Respondent”), failed to repair the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) unit in the rental Condominium for approximately 2 ½ months, which substantially reduced the value of her tenancy.

The Respondent contended that asserts that: (1) he was unable to gain access to the Condominium to repair the HVAC unit because the Complainant had placed a third lock on the door and failed to provide him with a key; (2) the HVAC repair required special order parts which were difficult to obtain; and (3) he is willing to credit the Complainant’s account with an amount equivalent to 4 days rent based on her inconvenience.

The Complainant requested an Order from the Commission that the Respondent pay her $3,285.00, which sum was equal to three (3) months rent, based of the Respondent’s failure to make timely repairs to the HVAC unit and the lack of air conditioning for the months of August, September and October 2006.

Findings:  The Commission found that: (1) at the commencement of the Complainant’s tenancy, the HVAC unit was approximately 25 years old, and that the Respondent had been advised by a professional air conditioning repairman that the HVAC unit needed to be replaced, but he failed to do so; (2) the HVAC unit malfunctioned throughout the Complainant’s tenancy, and completely stopped working on August 3, 2006; (3) due to the lack of air conditioning, the Complainant was unable to live in the Condominium for 4 days during August 2006; (4) the HVAC unit in the Condominium was not working from August 3, 2006, until October 24, 2006, which reduced the value of the Complainant’s tenancy during that entire period; (5) the Respondent had an obligation to provide air conditioning and heat to the Complainant during her tenancy, and the obligation to repair the air conditioning component of the HVAC unit in the Condominium, or provide an alternative such as window air conditioners, within a reasonable amount of time, but failed to do so, which constituted a beach of lease and reduced the value of the Complainant’s tenancy; (6) the length of time taken by the Respondent to repair the HVAC unit – August 3, 2006 to October 26, 2006 – was not reasonable; and (7) at no time did the Complainant deny access to the Condominium to the Respondent or any repairman.

The Order:  The Commission ordered the Respondent: (1) pay the Complainant $912.46, which sum represented a refund of 33⅓% of the rent paid by the Complainant for the month of August 2006 ($364.96), and 25% of the rent paid by the Complainant for the months of September and October 2006 ($547.50); and, (2) to provide tenants at residential rental properties he owns, operates or manages in Montgomery County, Maryland, with a lease agreement that fully complies with Chapter 29, Landlord-Tenant Relations, of the Montgomery County Code, § 8-203, “Security deposits,” and § 8-203.1, “Receipt for security deposit,” of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1999, as amended, or any other applicable statute, code, or regulation.

The Respondent subsequently satisfied the Order and paid the Complainant $912.46.

Case No. T-12787, Jim Johnson,

Between July 23, 1996 and March 14, 1997, Jim Johnson, Heather Farr, Kenneth Volante, Kimberly Collins, Michael Floyd, Densil Roberts, Shawn Brown and Michelle Roberts, Tenants, filed complaints alleging their Landlord, Plymouth Muse Limited Liability Co. and Lewis I. and Susan L. Winarsky: (1) failed to give them proper notice of transfer of  utility responsibility from the landlord to the tenant; (2) failed to offer a rent reduction commensurate with the cost of paying the utility; (3) improperly installed gas boilers; (4) set up utility accounts in their names without their consent; and (5) failed to make requested/required repairs after being put on notice by them and  the Department of Housing and Community Affairs ("DHCA").  Although each individual complaint had other issues, the five listed above were the issues that were involved in all complaints.

After holding a public hearing,  the Commission found that the Landlord:

1. did give Tenants proper notice of  intent to transfer the payment of the gas and electric utilities to each individual tenant, in substantial compliance with Section 29-30D(b)(1) and (2) of the Montgomery County Code, Landlord-Tenant Relations, 1994, as amended ("County Code");
2. did offer the Tenants rent reductions commensurate with the average amount paid for these utilities during the previous 24-month period. The Landlord offered a $30.00 rent reduction. The average gas bill during this period was $13.00 and the average electric bill was $20.19. DHCA recommended the rent reduction be $33.00, which the Landlord complied with;
3. did not violate any law or statute by initiating the conversion of the utilities since proper notice was given to the Tenants, however, the cost of setting up these accounts should not have been passed on to the Tenants;
4. installed a new boiler system that was found to be defective. Several expert witnesses testified that the configuration of the system allowed a tenant whose service had been cut off to turn on his/her circulating pump and receive heat and hot water at the expense of another Tenant whose boiler happened to be running. These experts agreed that this defect could be corrected by the addition of "aquastat" controls to each boiler, which was done on or about January 1, 1998. Since the boiler system is now properly installed, it is not possible to determine if the Tenants were paying the proper amount on their gas bills for the period February 1996, when the boilers were installed, until January 1, 1998, when the system was adjusted; and
5. failed to respond in a timely manner to requests for repairs from the Tenants and to repair problems cited and ordered by inspectors from the DHCA. The Landlord’s failure to make timely repairs to the Property created a defective tenancy and reduced the value of the leasehold for each individual Tenant by 25%.

On August 3, 1999, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay each Tenant an award, based in pertinent part on (1) a 25% reduction in the value of the leasehold because of the  Landlord’s failure to make timely repairs; and, (2) reimbursement for gas payments for the period February 1996, when the boiler system was installed, through January 1, 1998, when the defective installation was remedied.

The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay as follows:

Tenant Jim Johhnson $2,575.20

Tenants Heather Farr and Kenneth Volante $1,893.25

Tenant Nick Jamilla $1,724.85

Tenant Kimberly Collins $1,850.00

Tenant Michael Floyd $1,070.66

Tenant Densil Roberts $3,129.00

Tenants Shawn Brown and Michelle Roberts $ 208.16

On May 5, 1998, David Waple and Jenny O’Brien, Tenants, filed a complaint against David H. Saah, Landlord, in which they alleged the Landlord: 1) failed to make requested repairs to the Property; 2) began construction of a new house at the rear of the lot on which the Property sits, severely limiting their yard space and reducing the value of the leasehold; and (3) contractors building the new house used their electricity and water without their permission which increased their electric and water bills.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

1. the Landlord did fail to repair leaks after being informed repeatedly by the Tenants and is liable for costs incurred by the Tenants to make those repairs (579.33), along with an increased water bill (200.00), which totaled $779.33;
2. the Lease did not cover the adjoining lot, the Landlord was entitled to build on this Property and did not reduce the value of the Tenants’ leasehold;
3. the lease called for the Landlord to pay a of the utility bills for the Property (electric and water) which the Landlord failed to pay for the last month of the Tenants’ tenancy and is liable for those payments, which total $333.78 (218.92 for electric and 114.86 for water); and,
4. the Landlord caused a defective tenancy by failing to make needed and necessary repairs to the Property after being put on notice by the Tenants and failing to reimburse the Tenants for a of the utility payments during the last month of their tenancy.

On April 22, 1999, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants’ $1,113.11, which sum represents reimbursement for repairs and an increased water bill (779.33) plus reimbursement for utility bills owed by the Landlord (333.78).

                                                                Retaliation

On July 18, 1997, Barbara Wetherall, Tenant, filed a complaint against her former Landlord, Chander and Ashima Kant, in which she alleged that the Landlord failed to deliver the Property in clean, safe and sanitary condition, in compliance with all applicable laws at the commencement of the tenancy; failed to make needed and necessary repairs to the Property in a timely and workmanlike manner, which reduced the value of the leasehold; issued her a notice to vacate the Property in retaliation for making requests for repairs; and, failed to make repairs and attempted to evict her without cause.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

1. several defects existed at the Property when the Tenant took possession, including a faulty kitchen faucet, a leaky washing machine, a defective garage door mechanism, a defective water heater and a deteriorated perimeter fence;
2. the Tenant provided the Landlord with actual and written notice of the defects within two weeks of moving into the Property;
3. many of these defects were pre-existing, as evidenced by the testimony of the previous tenant at the Property, White, and the testimony of the Housing Code Enforcement Inspector, Morris, who cited the owner for the deteriorated fence prior to the Tenant moving into the Property;
4. the deteriorated fence and defective garage closing mechanism were a threat to the Tenant’s health and safety; and,
5. the requested/required repairs to the Property were not made in a timely or workmanlike manner.

Regarding the allegations of retaliation, the Commission found that:

1. the Landlord issued the Tenant a notice to vacate the Property in retaliation for her requests that he make repairs to the Property;
2. the Landlord engaged in a pattern of retaliatory practice against tenants who requested repairs, and the Landlord’s threats of eviction, notices to vacate, repeated filings against the Tenant in the District Court, and failure to make required/requested repairs were all retaliatory actions against the Tenant.

Regarding the allegations of breach of lease, the Commission found that:

1. the Landlord rented the Property to the Tenant with pre-existing damages and with full knowledge that the Property was not in compliance with Section 29-26(n) of Chapter 29;
2. the Landlord’s failure to make needed and necessary repairs to the Property after being put on notice by both the Tenant and the Department of Housing and Community Affairs was a violation of Section 29-30(a) of the County Code and Paragraph 9 of the lease agreement;
3. the Landlord’s failure to deliver the Property to the Tenant at the commencement of the tenancy in compliance with all applicable laws and his failure to make repairs after being put on notice by both the Tenant and the Department, decreased the Tenant’s ability to use certain appliances during the tenancy and lead to her inability to let her dog run loose in the backyard for her entire tenancy, constituted a diminution of the value of the leasehold by 15%; and,
4. the Landlord’s failure to make needed and necessary repairs to the Property and attempts to evict the Tenant prior to the expiration of the lease constituted a significant and substantial breach of the lease, which caused the Tenant not to exercise her renewal option for a second year and caused her to incur actual expense to relocate.

On July 18, 1998, the Commission:

1. terminated the lease agreement effective May 31, 1998;
2. ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $5,958.00, which sum represents the Tenant’s entire security deposit ($1,400) plus accrued interest ($56.00), attorney’s fees ($1,000.00), costs incurred to relocate from the Property based on the Landlord’s breach of lease ($982.00), and 15% of the monthly rent for 12 months based on the reduced value of the leasehold ($2,520.00);
3. ordered the Landlord to cease the practice of issuing a vacate notice to any tenant residing in property he owns, operates or manages in Montgomery County based solely on the tenant’s request for repairs or for filing a complaint with the Department or the Commission;
4. ordered the Landlord, for a period of two years from the date of the order, to submit all lease agreements to the Department for review and approval, prior to their issuance; and
5. ordered the Landlord to make any and all repairs to the Property, generated by future tenants or community residents, in accordance with the time frames and instructions set by the Department. Failure to adhere to the provisions of the Order is grounds for the issuance of a Class A civil citation in the amount of $500.00 and the immediate revocation of any and all Rental Licenses held by the Landlord.

On June 25, 1997, George and Regina Haritos, Tenants, filed a complaint against Brian and Joanne Fitzell, Landlords, in which they alleged the Landlord 1) failed to deliver the Property to them in a clean, safe and sanitary condition at the time they were scheduled to take possession; 2) failed to make needed and necessary repairs to the Property prior to their scheduled move-in date; 3) failed to provide them with the lead paint disclosure required by State law; and, 4) failed to refund their security deposit and first month’s rent after they notified the Fitzells in writing of their intention not to take possession of the Property.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

1. the Landlord failed to deliver the Property in a clean safe and sanitary condition, in violation of Section 29-26(n) of the County Code and the Tenants were justified in refusing to take possession of the Property;
2. the lease for the Property never became possessory, no present leasehold interest was created, and the Landlord was not entitled to rent;
3. the Landlord had no reasonable basis to withhold the Tenants’ security deposit and improperly disposed of it, in violation of Section 8-203 of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996 ("State Code"); and
4. the Landlord failed to give a proper receipt for the security deposit in violation of Section 8-203(a) of the State code.

On August 12, 1998, the Commission declared the lease between the Landlord and Tenants null and void and ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $3,018.00, which sum represents the Tenants’ pro-rated rent, $133.00, their security deposit $1,375.00, their first month’s rent $1,375.00, $25.00 penalty for failing to properly receipt the security deposit, and simple interest of $110.00.

On January 28, 1997, Scott Russo and Brandy Burkett, Tenants, filed a complaint against Priscilla M. Wilson, Landlord, in which they alleged that the Landlord (1) assessed unjust charges against their security deposit after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203, "Security Deposits," of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996 ("State Code"); (2) failed to send them an itemized list of damages within thirty (30) days after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(h)(1) of the State Code; and, (3) failed to return their security deposit plus accrued interest, within forty-five (45) days after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(1) and (g)(1) of the State Code.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission determined that:

1. the Landlord did send an itemized list of damages to the Tenants at their last known address within thirty days after they vacated the Property;
2. the Property was damaged in excess of ordinary wear and tear and needed the repairs done by BA Home Repairs ($478.00), and Fred’s Cleaning Service ($314.75);
3. the Tenants failed to pay the increased condominium fee of $11.00 per month for ten months, which was their responsibility under the terms of the lease agreement, but was paid by the Landlord. Therefore, the Landlord did incur a cost of $110.00;
4. the debts incurred by the Landlord ($478.00 + $314.75 + $110.00 = $902.75) exceeded the amount of the Tenants’ security deposit ($750.00) plus accrued interest ($30.00); and,
5. the Tenants failed to prove the Landlord mishandled their security deposit or created a defective tenancy.

The Commission found that the Landlord did not create a defective tenancy and thereby ordered this case be Dismissed.

Case No. H-1404, William & Karen Markley v. William M. McGovern

On September 11, 1995, William and Karen Markley, Tenants, filed a complaint against William M. McGovern, Landlord, in which they alleged that the Landlord (1) assessed unjust damages against their security deposit after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated code of Maryland ("State Code"); (2) failed to send them an itemized list of damages within thirty (30) days after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(h)(1) of the State Code; and, (3) failed to return their security deposit plus accrued interest, within forty-five (45) days after the termination of the tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(1) and (g)(1) of the State Code.

1. After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
2. although the Tenants gave oral notice to vacate, the Landlord, by his actions, acted as if it was written by scheduling the final walkthrough for the end of the month and, therefore, the tenancy terminated on the date given by the Tenants;
3. the Landlord failed to prove that the charges against the Tenants’ security deposit were for damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear;
4. the Landlord failed to prove that the repairs were made, with the exception of changing the front door lock ($95.00) and payment of the final WSSC bill ($48.96);
5. the Landlord failed to credit the Tenants’ security deposit with simple interest that accrued over 2 years and 11 months ($88.00); and,
6. the Landlord attempted to charge the Tenants for repairs he was responsible for making.

The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $944.04, which sum represents their security deposit ($1,000.00) plus accrued interest ($88.00) less damages rightfully withheld ($143.96).

Case No. H-1466, Gary Brown, Andrew Clements, Christopher Nyberg and Matthew Sobocinski v. William P. Perry

On December 22, 1995, Brown, Clements, Nyberg and Sobocinski, Tenants, filed a complaint alleging that their Landlord, Perry: (1) misrepresented the basement as bedroom space; (2) failed to make required, requested repairs to the furnace, which caused the Tenants’ to be without use of the furnace for an extended period of time; and, (3) failed to properly waterproof the basement which allowed it to leak constantly, causing damage to the tile floor along with the buildup of mildew in the basement.

The Tenants sought: (1) immediate termination of their lease agreement; (2) a refund of their security deposit plus accrued interest; and, (3) an abatement of their rent based on the reduced amount of usable bedroom space as a result of the landlord’s failure to make required and requested repairs in a timely and workmanlike manner, which reduced the value of the Property.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

1. the Tenants’ tenancy had already terminated before the commencement of the hearing, thus terminating the lease was a moot issue;
2. the Landlord failed to advise the tenants of their right to be present during the final walkthrough inspection of the Property, in violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the Real Property Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland ("State Code");
3. the Landlord failed to advise the Tenants of their right to receive a list of all existing damages to the Property, in violation of Section 8-203(c)(3) of the State Code;
4. the Landlord failed to present to the Tenants within thirty (30) days of the termination of their tenancy, an itemized list of damages together with actual costs incurred, in violation of Section 8-203(h)(1) of the State Code;
5. the Landlord failed to credit the Tenants’ security deposit with 4% interest, in the amount of $104.00, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(4) of the State Code; and,
6. the Landlord, without reasonable basis, failed to return the Tenants’ security deposit plus accrued interest within forty-five (45) days after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(4) of the State Code for which the Commission awarded a penalty in the amount of $500.00;
7. although the Tenants did provide credible evidence of the Landlord’s failure to make required/requested repairs to the furnace and the leaking basement, they failed to demonstrate that they were damaged in any way by this; and,
8. the Tenants failed to provide credible evidence that the Landlord advertised the Property as a four bedroom house and therefore, the request for a rent rebate was denied.

The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants the sum of $1,904.00, which sum represented the Tenants’ security deposit ($1,300) plus 2 years’ simple interest ($104) and a $500.00 penalty.

Case No. H-1516, William and Stephanie Wharton v. Mervyn and Hania Schwedt

On March 8, 1996, William and Stephanie Wharton, Tenants, filed a complaint against Mervyn and Hania Schwedt, Landlord, in which they alleged that the Landlord failed to deliver the Property at the commencement of their tenancy in a clean, safe and habitable condition. The Tenants asserted that because of this negligence, the value of the leasehold was greatly diminished.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission determined that:

1. the Property was in disrepair at the commencement of the tenancy which caused a three and one-half month delay in occupancy by the Tenants;
2. the Landlord failed to make any repairs to the Property from the original commencement date to the date of the hearing;
3. the District Court had established a rent ecrow account in July 1996;
4. during the period the house was uninhabitable, the Tenants paid rent to the Landlord’s mother at the rate of $75 per week;
5. the Landlord failed to repair several plumbing leaks, after being notified by County Code Enforcement and the Tenants;
6. as a result of this failure to make repairs, the Tenants incurred a cost of $166.00 to make these repairs and incurred a water bill of $427.98; and,
7. the Landlord amended the original lease to state that the Tenants accepted the property in "as is" condition.

The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $5,919.99, which sum represents: 1) the Tenants’ security deposit ($1,000.00) plus one year’s interest ($40.00); 2) all rent paid by the Tenants between January and March, 1996 ($3,000.00); 3) partial refund of the rent paid between April and June 1996 ($1,500.00); 4) one-half of the WSSC bill ($213.99); and 5) reimbursement for plumbing repairs ($166.00). The Commission further ordered the immediate termination of the lease agreement between the Landlord and the Tenants.

Case No. H-1506, Guy O. Stallworthy and Sylvia Torres v. George and Susan Schneider

On February 22, 1996, Guy O. Stallworthy and Sylvia Torres, Tenants, filed a complaint against George and Susan Schneider, Landlord, in which they alleged the Landlord 1) failed to replace carpeting in the basement that was flood damaged; 2) applied mildew resistant chemicals to the carpet which adversely affected the Tenant’s asthma; 3) required unreasonable gutter cleaning; and, 4) assessed unjust damages against their security deposit after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland ("State Code").

After holding a public hearing, the Commission determined that:

1. the damage to the basement was caused by severe weather conditions, not by negligence on the part of the Tenants;
2. the Tenants notified the Landlord promptly of the damage as required by the lease;
3. the Landlord failed to restore the carpet to its original condition following the flood;
4. the Landlord did incur expenses of $197.50 for damages to the Property, not associated with the basement flood;
5. the Landlord overcharged the Tenants $6.20 for pro-rata rent covering March 1-10, 1996;
6. the Tenants lived in the Property less than six months and are not entitled to any interest on their security deposit; and,
7. the Tenants did not incur any actual damages as a result of the damage caused by the flood.

The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $2,508.70, which sum represents the Tenants’ security deposit ($2,700) plus overpayment of March 1996 pro-rata rent ($6.20) minus damages rightfully withheld ($197.50).