Assanah-Carroll v. Law Offices of Edward J. Maher, P.C.
| Docket Number | Misc. No. 11, Sept. Term, 2021 |
| Decision Date | 28 July 2022 |
| Citation | 480 Md. 394,281 A.3d 72 |
| Parties | Alison ASSANAH-CARROLL v. LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD J. MAHER, P.C., et al. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Joseph Mack (The Law Offices of Joseph S. Mack, Baltimore, MD; Ingmar Goldson, The Goldson Law Office, Rockville, MD), on brief, for Appellant.
Argued by Daniel J. Shuster (Justin A. Redd, Kramon & Graham, P.A., Baltimore, MD; Mitchell W. Berger and Jeffrey S. Wertman, Berger Singerman LLP, Fort Lauderdale, FL; James E. Dickerman, Eccelston & Wolf, P.C., Hanover, MD), on brief, for Appellees.
Amici Curiae The Public Justice Center, Civil Justice, Homeless Persons Representation Project, and Maryland Legal Aid: Michael Abrams, Esquire, Murnaghan Appellate Advocacy Fellow, Public Justice Center, 201 N. Charles Street, Suite 1200, Baltimore, MD 21202.
Amicus Curiae Maryland Multi-Housing Association, Inc.: Avery Barton Strachan, Esquire, Keri L. Smith, Esquire, Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, 201 N. Charles St., Suite 2600, Baltimore, MD 21202.*
Argued before: Getty, C.J., Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Gould, Robert N. McDonald (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Under the Baltimore City Code, a landlord is required to have a rental license to provide residential rental housing. This matter comes before the Court pursuant to two questions of law certified1 by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland ("federal district court") regarding a tenant's right to recoup rent voluntarily paid by a tenant, as well as a landlord's right to collect unpaid rent, which is attributable to the period in which the landlord was not licensed.
The federal district court has certified the following questions to this Court, which we have slightly rephrased as follows:2
The answer to question 1 is "no." As set forth more fully herein, a tenant who voluntarily paid rent to a landlord who lacked a rental license may not bring a private action under the MCPA or the MCDCA to recover restitution of rent based upon the landlord's lack of licensure. Our case law firmly establishes that a tenant may only maintain a private action under the MCPA for deceptive trade practices arising from renting an unlicensed apartment if the tenant can prove that the unlicensed condition caused the tenant to suffer an "actual injury or loss." The Baltimore City Council, in enacting Bill 18-0185, which added § 5-4(a)(2) to the Baltimore City Code, did not intend to create a judicial remedy enabling City tenants to seek restitution of rent as part of a private action filed under the MCPA. Even if the City Council had intended to create such a remedy, the City Council lacks the authority to adopt a local law that modifies the remedies established by the MCPA—a state statute that provides uniform remedies to consumers on a state-wide basis who are subject to unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices.
With respect to question 2, we answer "yes." Consistent with this Court's authority to apply the common law, we hold that where a municipality or county enacts a rental license law, which conditions the performance of a residential lease upon the issuance of a rental license, a landlord may not file an action against a tenant to recover unpaid rent that is attributable to the period when the property was not licensed. Accordingly, where a landlord attempts to collect unpaid rent from a tenant during a period when the landlord lacked a license to engage in such activity, a tenant may have a claim under the MCDCA and the MCPA to the extent that the landlord's unlawful collection activity caused the tenant to suffer damages, including rent payments made in response to the landlord's attempts to collect the unpaid rent.
Under the Maryland Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, § 12 -601, et seq. , the court certifying the question shall issue a certification order containing "(1) [t]he question of law to be answered; [and] (2) [t]he facts relevant to the question, showing fully the nature of the controversy out of which the question arose[.]" CJ § 12-606(a). In responding to a certification from another court, this Court accepts the facts provided by the certifying court. See, e.g. , Price v. Murdy , 462 Md. 145, 147, 198 A.3d 798 (2018). We resolve only issues of Maryland law, not questions of fact. Parler & Wobber v. Miles & Stockbridge , 359 Md. 671, 681, 756 A.2d 526 (2000).
Appellant Alison Assanah-Carroll ("Assanah-Carroll") is a tenant in an apartment building located at 2601 Madison Avenue in Baltimore (the "property"), which is owned and operated by the Appellees E.T.G. Associates '94 LP and Roizman Development, Inc. For ease of reference, we will refer to both entities collectively as "Roizman." In Baltimore City, all rental dwellings are required to be licensed. The property was unlicensed from August 15, 2019 to July 14, 2020. The complaint3 alleges that Roizman collected and retained rent from tenants for the period that the property was unlicensed, refused to return the rent, and sought to collect unpaid rent that was owed during the period when the property was unlicensed.
Assanah-Carroll filed a class action complaint in the federal district court against Roizman, as well as the Law Offices of Edward J. Maher, P.C. and Edward J. Maher ("Maher")—the latter being the attorney and law firm that Roizman retained to assist with the collection of unpaid rent that was owed during the period when the landlord did not have a license. For ease of reference, we will refer to Maher and the law firm collectively as the "Law Office." The complaint was filed on behalf of Assanah-Carroll and members of a putative class comprised of other tenants who resided in the 146-unit apartment building during the unlicensed period. Roizman filed a motion to dismiss, in which the Law Office joined.
Before ruling on the motion to dismiss, the federal district court, with the parties' consent, determined that it was advisable to consider our response to the certified questions presented herein, as well as our opinion in Aleti v. Metropolitan Baltimore, LLC , 479 Md. 696, 279 A.3d 905 (2022), which we issue simultaneously herewith.
In connection with our consideration of the questions of law presented herein, we accept the following facts set forth in the federal district court's certification order, which are based upon Assanah-Carroll's allegations contained in the complaint filed in that court.
Assanah-Carroll leased an apartment in a residential multi-unit building in Baltimore City, owned and operated by Roizman. When she began living in the apartment, the property had a valid license under the Baltimore City Code. During Assanah-Carroll's tenancy, the license lapsed for approximately one year, and thereafter the property became properly licensed again, and continues to be properly licensed.
Assanah-Carroll made rental payments during the period when the property's license had lapsed. She stopped making rental payments when she learned that the property's license was not in effect. When she learned the property was again licensed, she resumed making rental payments.
Assanah-Carroll does not allege that her dwelling unit was uninhabitable or that the value of the lease was diminished by any condition of the property caused by the lack of licensure. Her claim for damages4 under the MCDCA and MCPA is based solely upon the fact that the property was not licensed.
She alleges that the entire rental payment for any unlicensed period constitutes damages.
On behalf of their clients, the Law Office filed summary ejectment actions in the District Court of Maryland sitting in Baltimore City to collect unpaid rent that would have been owed during the period that the property was unlicensed. Assanah-Carroll made a payment for rent incurred during the period in which the property was unlicensed in order to redeem her lease pursuant to a final judgment of the Baltimore City District Court.
Assanah-Carroll alleges that the collection of rent during the unlicensed period violated the Baltimore City Code, and that those payments constitute damages under the MCDCA and MCPA and must be refunded. For rent that was unpaid, she alleges that attempting to collect unpaid back rent for months when the property was not licensed, even though the property is currently licensed, violates the Baltimore City Code. She further asserts that the full amount of the unpaid rental payments constitutes damages under the MCDCA and MCPA.
Baltimore City, like many other local governments in Maryland, has enacted a public local law governing residential rental licenses and inspections (sometimes hereinafter referred to as the City's "rental license law"). The City's rental license law has been around for many decades. The provisions of the Baltimore ...
To continue reading
Request your trial