Landlord Tenant Summaries of Decisions and Orders
Retaliatory Notice Cases

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

Case #:  27336, Kimberly Argilan v. John Bresnahan and Julianne Ivins
Date:  August 8, 2006
Subject:  Retaliation
Summary of Complaint: Kimberly Argilan (“Complainant”), filed a complaint alleging that her landlords, John Bresnahan and Julianne Ivins (“Respondents”), continually harassed her and her family, invaded her privacy by entering the rental Property on numerous occasions without prior notice and without her prior consent, telephoned her at inappropriate hours, and improperly videotaped her, all of which has reduced the value of her leasehold tenancy and denied her quiet enjoyment of the Property, in violation of Section 29-32(b) of the County Code.

The Respondents contended that: (1) the Complainant was in breach of the Lease by having persons other than those listed on the Lease residing in the Property; and (2) they have entered the Property only to make repairs requested by the Complainant, or to determine whether or not there are additional persons, other than the Complainant and her son, residing at the Property.

The Complainant is seeking an Order from the Commission that: (1) the lease agreement for the rental of the Property (“Lease”) be terminated without penalty; (2) her security deposit be refunded in full; and (3) rent previously paid to the Respondents be refunded.

Findings:  The Commission found that: (1) the Respondents improperly and without prior notice entered the rental property without prior notice and the consent of the Complainant; (2) refused to comply with the Complainant’s request to leave the rental property; and (3) Respondent Ivins improperly videotaped the Complainant and the Property, called a towing company attempting to have the Complainant’s vehicles towed, called the Complainant’s job to try and obtain her work schedule, and threatened to ruin the Complainant’s credit, which constituted violations of Section 29-32(b), “Prohibited practices,” of the County Code, and created a defective tenancy.  The Commission further found that Respondent Ivins’ continued actions against the Complainant were unreasonable and unwarranted and created a defective tenancy, and Respondents behavior toward the Complainant from the commencement of her tenancy had been aggressive and violated § 8-204, “Covenant of quiet enjoyment,” of the State Code, and created a defective tenancy.

The Order:  The Commission ordered that: (1) the lease agreement between the Respondents and the Complainant be terminated effective August 31, 2006, and the Complainant did not owe rent beyond that point; (2) the Complainant must pay the Respondents pro-rata rent through the date she vacates, or August 31, 2006, whichever occurred first; (3) Respondent Ivins was not to contact the Complainant except in the case of an emergency.  Otherwise all contact between the Complainant and Respondents must be handled by Respondent Bresnahan.  All contacts made by the Respondents to schedule appointments to show the Property to prospective tenants were to be made by Respondent Bresnahan only; (4) A joint inspection with the Complainant, Respondent Bresnahan and staff from the Office of Landlord-Tenant Affairs would be conducted on August 31, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. to determine whether or not the Complainant damaged the rental property in excess of ordinary wear and tear, and Respondents would be bound by the finding of the Office; (5) The Respondents must dispose of the Complainant’s security deposit in compliance with § 8-203, Security Deposits, of the State Code; and (6) for any future rentals of the Property, or any other residential rental properties the Respondents may acquire in Montgomery County, Maryland, the Respondents must not engage in any retaliatory behavior or activity against any tenant, including, but not limited to threats, coercion, harassment, or violation of the tenant’s privacy.  Any such behavior or activity would be construed by the Commission to be a violation of the Order, and could constitute grounds for the immediate revocation by the Department of any or all Rental Facility Licenses held by the Respondents.

Case: #25568, Lartigue v. Taylor

 ISSUED: July 8, 2004

 SUBJECT:  Retaliatory Eviction

Summary:  Phillip Lartigue and Osula Rushing (“the Complainants”), tenants of a single-family house, filed a complaint with the Department of Housing and Community Affairs (“DHCA”) in which they alleged that their landlord, Thomas Taylor (“the Respondent”): (1) failed to make needed and necessary repairs to the badly-deteriorated concrete walkway and steps, and (2) refused to repair the walkway unless the Complainants paid for the repair.  The Complainants subsequently amended their complaint to assert that the Respondent issued them a notice to quit and vacate the Property in retaliation for the complaints filed with DHCA.

 Findings:        (1) The damage to the exterior walkways and stairs of the Property was not the result of the Complainants’ abuse or negligence; and (2) the Respondent issued a Notice to Vacate to the Complainants in retaliation for complaints they filed with DHCA, in violation of Section 29-32(b), “Prohibited practices,” of the County Code, and Section 8-208.1, “Retaliatory evictions,” of the State Code, and that his actions had caused a defective tenancy.

 On June 4, 2004, the Commission issued an Interim Order “to preserve the status quo and to prevent possible irreparable harm” to the Complainants, which stated that:  “The Respondent, Thomas Taylor, is hereby ordered to take no action to evict the Complainant, Phillip Lartigue, from the rental property located at 2419 Churchill Road, Silver Spring, Maryland 20902, including, but not limited to, filing of any action for possession in the Landlord-Tenant Division of the District Court of Maryland, until such time as the Commission has issued its Final Decision and Order in this matter.”

 On July 8, 2004, the Commission issued its Final Order and ruled that:  (1) the Respondent must issue written notice to the Complainants, with a copy sent to DHCA, that the Notice to Vacate issued to the Complainants had been rescinded and will not be enforced;  (2) The Respondent was not to enter the Property in non-exigent circumstances without first providing at least twenty-four (24) hours prior notice and obtaining the written approval of the Complainants, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld; and (3) The Respondent must make any and all necessary repairs to bring the exterior stairs and walkway of the Property into compliance with Chapter 26, Housing and Building Maintenance Standards, of the County Code within the timeframes set by DHCA’s Code Enforcement Section.

Case No. 13180 Unsworth v. Marchegiani

 ISSUED:  January 14, 2003

SUBJECT:  Retaliatory Actions/Security Deposit

 On February 15, 2002, the Tenant filed a formal complaint with the Department in which she alleged that the Landlord: (1) failed to make needed and necessary repairs to the Property during Tenant’s tenancy; (2) issued the Tenant notice to vacate in retaliation for complaints filed against the Landlord with the Department for failing to make repairs; (3) entered the Property without prior notice or the Tenant’s consent; and (4) without a reasonable basis failed to refund any portion of her $3,190.00 security deposit plus $574.20 accrued interest within forty-five (45) days after the termination of her tenancy.

 The Landlord contends that: (1) the Tenant breached the lease by refusing to allow him and/or his workmen access to the Property to make repairs ordered by the Department; (2) most of the repairs ordered by the Department were to repair damage caused to the Property by the Tenant and her dogs;  (3) the notice to vacate issued to the Tenant was not retaliatory, but was based on the Tenant’s refusal to allow him access to the Property to make repairs; (4) the Tenant failed to vacate the Property by February 28, 2002, and failed to pay February 2002 rent; (5) the Tenant vacated the Property on or about March 3, 2002; (6) the Tenant damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear and the charges assessed against her security deposit were for actual costs incurred to repair that damage; and (7) the repair costs and unpaid February 2002 rent plus late fee exceeded the amount of the Tenant’s security deposit plus accrued interest, and therefore, she is not due a refund.

 After holding a public hearing on September 18, 2002, the Commission found that the Landlord must pay the Tenant $500.00, which sum is for reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the Tenant as a result of the Landlord’s retaliatory conduct and notice to vacate.  Due to damages done to the Property by the Tenant that were beyond normal wear and tear and non-payment of rent, the Tenant’s request for the refund of her security deposit plus interest is denied.  However, any future claim by the Landlord against the Tenant arising from her tenancy at the Property is limited to $367.70, the total amount of damages that exceeded the amount of the Tenant’s security deposit plus interest.

Case #13217, Mullens vs. Teychenne

ISSUED:  August 27, 2002

SUBJECT:  Retaliatory Notice

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:  (1) the landlord-tenant relationship between the Tenants and the Landlord was governed by a written lease;  and (2) the term of the lease was greater than one month, as required by § 8-208.1(f).   Section 8-208.1(f) states:

Nothing in this section may be interpreted to alter the landlord’s or the tenant’s rights to terminate or not renew a tenancy governed by a written lease for a stated term of greater than 1 month at the expiration of the term or at any other time as the parties may specifically agree;

(3) the Landlord rescinded the notice to vacate previously issued to the Tenants based on a retaliation determination by the Office of Landlord-Tenant Affairs; and that (4) the retaliation determination from the Office of Landlord-Tenant Affairs was made in error.

The Tenants are currently occupying the Property with the Landlord’s consent, and as indicated by the Landlord’s recent notice to the Tenants, such consent will expire on September 30, 2002.

The Tenants’ request for injunctive relief against the Landlord’s notice to vacate no later than September 30, 2002, is denied.

                                                                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.

Between December 4, 1995 and March 6, 1996, Olivia E. Brooks, Marva Oakley, Mabel Biney, Rehema P. Mangaza, and Phoebe Robinson, Tenants, filed complaints against Blair Park Limited Partnership, Landlord, in which they alleged that the Landlord failed to offer them a readable lease agreement or one that was in compliance with State and County law; failed to offer them a two-year lease as required by County law; failed to make timely and workmanlike repairs to the Property; failed to give them proper notice before entering their units, violating their privacy; and, engaged in retaliatory actions against them, including threatened evictions, harassment, and reduction in services.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

1. the Landlord signed a Consent Agreement with Montgomery County on March 22, 1996, resolving the issue of readable leases and offering of two-year leases to all tenants;
2. the Landlord was put on notice by the Department of Housing and Community Affairs, Division of Code Enforcement, initially on December 6, 1995 of numerous (132) code violations, again on January 26, 1996 of 525 additional violations;
3. the landlord was put on notice on April 18, 1996, by the Montgomery County Division of Fire Code Enforcement of 17 violations, the majority of which had not been repaired through the date of the hearing (141 days later);
4. the Landlord engaged in retaliatory practices against the Tenants by failing to give them any notice before entering their units, failing to make needed repairs to the Property, and failing to respond to their requests after they filed complaints with the Division of Housing and Code Enforcement;
5. the Tenants failed to demonstrate they suffered any actual damages; and,
6. the Landlord did create defective tenancies by failing to make repairs required by the Montgomery County Housing and Fire Codes.

On June 17, 1996, the Commission ordered the Landlord to do the following: refund to each Tenant all rent money paid for the period of December 6, 1995, through April 25, 1996- an award based on the date the Landlord was first put on notice by the Division of Housing and Code Enforcement through the date of the public hearing, April 24-25, 1996, which total is 141 days; offer each Tenant the option to terminate their lease by July 31, 1996, with the return of their security deposit plus accrued interest at the time they vacate; immediately stop entering Tenants’ apartments without giving at least 24 hours’ notice to, and without objection from, the Tenants; complete all outstanding repairs cited by the Division of Housing and Code Enforcement between December 1995, and the date of the hearing, within 30 days; and, pay reasonable attorney’s fees (up to $500.00 per Tenant) provided the Tenants’ attorney(s) submit the bill for services within 15 days of the date of the Order.

In December 1995, Newma Hawkins, Tenant, filed a complaint against Daniel T. Nainan, Landlord, alleging that he (1) failed to offer her a 2 year lease at the beginning of her tenancy; (2) issued her a notice to vacate in retaliation for complaints she filed with the County about roach infestation and a defective stove in her apartment and her attempts to form a tenants’ association; and (3) failed to correct serious housing code violations in her apartment for nearly 4 months.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

1. the issue of the 2 year lease offer had been resolved prior to hearing;
2. the notice to vacate issued to Hawkins by Nainan was in retaliation for complaints filed about roach infestation, a defective stove and other housing code violations in her apartment, and,
3. Nainan’s failure to repair Hawkins’ gas stove for 101 days caused her to eat certain meals outside of her apartment. The Commission noted that prior to the hearing, the District Court abated Hawkins’ rent for 3 months ($1,530.00), and denied Nainan’s attempt to enforce the notice to vacate.

Therefore, based on his failure to repair the gas stove in her apartment for 101 days, on May 23, 1996, the Commission ordered Nainan to pay Hawkins $1,010.00, which sum represented the actual cost Hawkins incurred to eat meals out of her apartment, $10.00 per day for 101 days. Nainan then appealed the Commission’s Order to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for judicial review, and on May 13, 1997, the Court affirmed the Commission’s Order. Subsequently, Nainan paid Hawkins $1,010.00.