Chateau Foghorn LP v. Hosford
Decision Date | 28 August 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 73, Sept. Term, 2016.,73, Sept. Term, 2016. |
Citation | 455 Md. 462,168 A.3d 824 |
Parties | CHATEAU FOGHORN LP v. Wesley HOSFORD |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Avery Barton Strachan (Kerri L. Smith, Silverman Thompson Slutkin White LLC, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.
Argued by Matthew C. Zernhelt (Baltimore, MD; Theodosia Saffo, Maryland Legal Aid Bureau, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent.
Katherine Kelly Howard, Esquire, Thomas R. Tompsett, Jr., Esquire, Maryland Multi–Housing Association, Inc., 1421 Clarkview Road, Suite 100B, Baltimore, MD 21209, Amicus Curiae for Maryland Multi-Housing Association, Inc.
Anthony J. May, Murnaghan Appellate Advocacy Fellow, Public Justice Center, One North Charles Street, Suite 200, Baltimore, MD 21201, Amicus Curiae for Public Justice Center, Homeless Persons Representation Project, and Disability Rights in Maryland.
Argued before Barbera, C.J., Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, JJ.
In all cases involving the interplay between the laws issued by the federal government and those enacted by the states, courts must balance the twin principles stated above: First, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause,1 federal law enacted under the delegated powers and authority of the federal government is the supreme law of the land; Second, there is a presumption against federal laws or regulations preempting or superseding state laws, particularly in fields that have historically been the province of the states.
In the instant case we are called upon to apply those principles to Maryland Code, (1974, 2010 Repl. Vol.), Real Property Article ("RP") § 8–402.1, which provides that a court ruling on a landlord-tenant dispute must conclude that a breach of a lease is "substantial and warrants an eviction" before granting judgment for possession of the leased premises. We must decide whether the Maryland statute conflicts with, and is thus preempted by, federal law and regulations mandating that federally-subsidized Section 8 project-based housing developments include provisions in their tenant lease agreements to provide that engaging in any drug-related criminal activity on or near the leased premises is grounds for termination of the lease. For the following reasons, we shall conclude that RP § 8–402.1 does not conflict with the congressional intent behind the federal law and regulations at issue and, therefore, we shall hold that the statute is not preempted by federal law.
Wesley Hosford, the Respondent, is severely disabled and has been wheelchair-bound since 1987. He suffers from incomplete paralysis in his extremities, with muscle spasms and sensations leaving him in daily pain.2 Since 1989, Mr. Hosford has resided at Ruscombe Gardens Apartments, an apartment building in Baltimore City owned by Chateau Foghorn LP ("Foghorn"), the Petitioner. Ruscombe Gardens Apartments provides housing for low-income elderly and disabled tenants that is subsidized through a federal "Section 8" project-based rental subsidy program.3
(Emphasis in original.)
In 2014, Ruscombe Gardens Apartments was experiencing a bed bug infestation, and Foghorn hired an extermination company to treat units in the complex. On June 10, 2014, two exterminators entered Mr. Hosford's unit to perform extermination treatment and saw a marijuana plant growing in a pot in his bathtub.4 They reported this to the apartment's management office. A security guard employed by Ruscombe Gardens Apartments went to Mr. Hosford's unit and saw the same marijuana plant.
Thereafter, police were called, and an officer responded and came to Mr. Hosford's unit. The officer examined the plant in the bathroom, concluded it was marijuana, and confiscated it. He then issued Mr. Hosford a criminal citation for the possession of marijuana. A police chemist tested the plant found in the apartment and concluded that it was marijuana. Subsequently, Mr. Hosford was charged in the District Court of Maryland sitting in Baltimore City with possession of less than ten grams of marijuana. Ultimately, a nolle prosequi was entered as to that charge.
In June 2014, Foghorn gave Mr. Hosford a notice of termination of his lease. When he did not vacate the unit within thirty days of that notice, Foghorn initiated an eviction action pursuant to RP § 8–402.15 against Mr. Hosford in the District Court of Maryland sitting in Baltimore City, claiming that Mr. Hosford had breached the terms of the drug-free housing agreement addendum to his lease. Mr. Hosford thereafter filed a timely prayer for a jury trial in the circuit court, claiming that the value of his right to continued occupation of his apartment exceeded the $15,000 threshold set by statute.6
The case was subsequently transferred to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for a jury trial. Prior to the scheduled date of trial, Foghorn filed a motion for summary judgment with a supporting memorandum, asserting:
In response, Mr. Hosford claimed that there was a dispute of material fact as to whether the plant in his apartment was marijuana. He also noted that his criminal citation was for possession of less than ten grams of marijuana. And, he presented medical records to show his history of muscle spasms and other sensations and pain as a result of his paralysis, along with an expert affidavit that the use of marijuana "is likely to provide ... therapeutic or palliative relief" from such symptoms. On the basis of that information, he asserted that even if he had possessed marijuana his actions did not constitute a criminal offense pursuant to Maryland Code, Criminal Law Article ("CR") §§ 5–601(c)(2)(ii) or 5–601(c)(3)(iii)(1), and thus were not a breach of his lease. Finally, he contended that even if he had breached the terms of his lease, the trial court could still determine whether the breach was "substantial and warrants an eviction" pursuant to RP § 8–402.1.
On March 18, 2015, the circuit court held a hearing on Foghorn's motion for summary judgment. On March 23, 2015, the circuit court issued a written order granting summary judgment in favor of Foghorn as well as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thomas v. Shear
...as a matter of law." Kennedy Krieger Inst., Inc. v. Partlow , 460 Md. 607, 632, 191 A.3d 425 (2018) (quoting Chateau Foghorn LP v. Hosford , 455 Md. 462, 482, 168 A.3d 824 (2017) ). In doing so, "[w]e review the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and construe any reas......
-
Andrews & Lawrence Prof'l Servs., LLC v. Mills
...this Court reviews the decision of the circuit court and the Court of Special Appeals without deference. See Chateau Foghorn v. Hosford , 455 Md. 462, 483, 168 A.3d 824 (2017). To determine whether there is a dispute of material fact, the court independently reviews the record. See Tyler v.......
-
Wilkinson v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of St. Mary's Cnty.
...not, whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id. at 632, 191 A.3d 425 (quoting Chateau Foghorn LP v. Hosford , 455 Md. 462, 482, 168 A.3d 824 (2017) ). "We review the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and construe any reasonable inferenc......
-
Romeka v. RadAmerica II, LLC
...moving party.’ " Kennedy Krieger Inst., Inc. v. Partlow , 460 Md. 607, 632-33, 191 A.3d 425 (2018) (quoting Chateau Foghorn LP v. Hosford , 455 Md. 462, 482, 168 A.3d 824 (2017) ). "So long as the record reveals no genuine dispute of any material fact ‘necessary to resolve the controversy a......