Aleti v. Metro. Balt., LLC
Decision Date | 06 July 2021 |
Docket Number | No. 459, Sept. Term, 2020,459, Sept. Term, 2020 |
Citation | 251 Md.App. 482,254 A.3d 533 |
Parties | Karunaker ALETI, et ux. v. METROPOLITAN BALTIMORE, LLC, et al. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by: E. David Hoskins (Law Offices of E. David Hoskins, LLC), Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.
Argued by: Eric Pelletier (Offit, Kurman, P.A.), Bethesda, MD, for Appellee.
Panel: Fader, C.J., Shaw Geter, Robert A. Zarnoch (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Subsection 5-4(a)(1) of Article 13 of the Baltimore City Code prohibits any person from renting or offering to rent a dwelling "without a currently effective license to do so from the Housing Commissioner[.]" Subsection 5-4(a)(2) of that article prohibits any person from charging, accepting, retaining, or seeking to collect rent for a rental dwelling unless the person was properly licensed at the time of both the offer to provide the dwelling and the occupancy. In this appeal, we must determine whether subsection (a)(2) provides tenants a private right of action to collect a refund of rent and other fees already paid to a landlord who was unlicensed during a portion of a rental term, but who otherwise complied fully with the rental agreement for the dwelling. Relying on well-established principles of statutory interpretation, contract law, and equity, we conclude that subsection (a)(2) does not provide such a right with respect to rent and related fees. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to the extent that court held that the tenant plaintiffs did not have a right to recover rent already paid to the landlord defendants.
We will, however, reverse two aspects of the circuit court's judgment: (1) its entry of judgment in favor of the landlords on the common law count of money had and received, to the extent that the tenants seek to recover legal fees attributable to the landlords’ attempts, while unlicensed, to use the courts to collect rental fees; and (2) its dismissal of the tenants’ request for a declaratory judgment. We will remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.1
Karunaker and Chandana Aleti (the "Aletis"), the appellants, brought this action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the appellees, Metropolitan Baltimore, LLC, the owner of 10 Light Street, an apartment building located in Baltimore City, and Gables Residential Services, Inc., the property manager for 10 Light Street. For ease of reference, we will refer to both entities collectively as "Metropolitan." The Aletis alleged that for a period of approximately ten months while they were tenants of 10 Light Street, Metropolitan did not hold an active rental license for the property as required by Article 13, § 5-4(a)(1) of the Baltimore City Code. The Aletis, unaware of the lack of licensure, paid rental and other fees to Metropolitan, which they then sought to recover through this action. The Aletis also sought (1) certification as a class action to pursue recovery of rental and other fees that similarly situated tenants paid to Metropolitan during the same period, and (2) a declaratory judgment that Metropolitan could not collect unpaid rent and other fees that accrued during the time it was unlicensed. We will begin by exploring the statutory scheme on which the Aletis’ claim is based.
Article 13 of the Baltimore City Code is "a comprehensive statutory scheme aimed at ‘establish[ing] minimum standards governing the condition, use, operation, occupancy, and maintenance of dwellings ... in order to make dwellings safe, sanitary, and fit for human habitation.’ "2 Brooks v. Lewin Realty III, Inc. , 378 Md. 70, 81, 835 A.2d 616 (2003) ( )(quoting Baltimore City Code (2000), Art. 13, § 103(a)(2)), abrogated on other grounds by Ruffin Hotel Corp. of Md. v. Gasper , 418 Md. 594, 17 A.3d 676 (2011). Section 2-1, which states determinations and declarations of the Baltimore City Council supporting its adoption of Article 13 and establishment of the City's Department of Housing and Community Development, identifies a broad focus on the City and its residents generally. In relevant part, § 2-1 states:
This appeal most directly concerns Subtitle 5 of Article 13, which governs the licensing of rental dwellings. Section 5-4(a), as it applied at the time relevant to this appeal,3 provides:
Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section,[4 ] no person may:
Section 5-5 requires owners and managers of a rental dwelling to apply for new and renewal licenses, the prerequisites for which are set forth in § 5-6. Those prerequisites include that all dwelling and rooming units must be properly registered; all registration fees must be paid; and the premises must have passed inspection, be in compliance with all laws and regulations pertaining to lead paint, and not be subject to any unabated violation notices or orders under the City's building, fire, or related codes. Id. § 5-6.5
Subtitle 5 also contains enforcement provisions. Section 5-17 permits the Housing Commissioner to require that an unlicensed rental dwelling be vacated within 24 hours if "vacating the premises is necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare." Under § 5-25, issuance of an environmental citation is an available, non-exclusive remedy to enforce the ordinance. Section 5-26 makes any violation of the subtitle a misdemeanor subject to punishment by "a fine of not more than $1,000 for each offense," with each day a violation continues constituting a separate offense.
On May 31, 2019, the Aletis entered a lease agreement with Metropolitan to rent an apartment on the 16th floor of 10 Light Street for a one-month term beginning on June 1, 2019 and expiring on June 30, 2019, subject to automatic renewals on a monthly basis (the "Lease"). Pursuant to the Lease, the Aletis were obligated to pay monthly rent of $1,435.00, subject to a late fee of $71.75 if not paid by the fifth day of the month due. The Lease also contains a utility and services addendum providing...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Assanah-Carroll v. Law Offices of Edward J. Maher, P.C.
...and maintenance of dwellings in order to make dwellings safe, sanitary, and fit for human habitation." Aleti v. Metro. Balt., LLC , 251 Md. App. 482, 491, 254 A.3d 533 aff'd, –––– (2021) (cleaned up). Put simply, the licensing requirements are one way in which the Baltimore City Council has......
-
Aleti v. Metro. Balt., LLC
...certification. In a reported opinion, the Court of Special Appeals largely agreed with the circuit court. Aleti v. Metropolitan Baltimore, LLC , 251 Md. App. 482, 254 A.3d 533 (2021). The intermediate appellate court held that the Aletis: (1) did not have an implied private right of action ......
-
Smith v. Westminster Mgmt.
... ... landlord's ... violation of the statute. See Aleti v. Metro. Baltimore, ... LLC , 251 Md.App. 482, 502 (2021), aff'd , ... 479 Md. 696 ... ...
-
Smith v. Westminster Mgmt.
... ... landlord's ... violation of the statute. See Aleti v. Metro. Baltimore, ... LLC , 251 Md.App. 482, 502 (2021), aff'd , ... 479 Md. 696 ... ...