Guerra v. Dist of Col. Rental Housing

• Decision Date: 05 December 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-687.,84-687.
• Citation: 501 A.2d 786
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals
• Parties: Stella GUERRA, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RENTAL HOUSING COMMISSION, Respondent. Shannon & Luchs Company, Intervenor.

501 A.2d 786

Stella GUERRA, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RENTAL HOUSING COMMISSION, Respondent Shannon & Luchs Company, Intervenor.

No. 84-687.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Argued February 19, 1985.

Decided December 5, 1985.

Paul S. Penczner, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Richard B. Nettler, Asst. Corp. Counsel, with whom Inez Smith Reid, Corp. Counsel, John H. Suda, Principal Deputy Corp. Counsel and Charles L. Reischel, Deputy Corp. Counsel, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for respondent.

Richard W. Luchs, Washington, D.C., for intervenor.

Before NEBEKER, FERREN and TERRY, Associate Judges.

TERRY, Associate Judge:

Petitioner seeks review of a decision of the Rental Housing Commission that held certain rent increases effected by her landlord to be proper under the Rental Housing Act of 1980, D.C. Code §§ 45-1501 through 45-1597 (1981), and dismissed her claims for treble damages and a rollback in the rent. Among her several assignments of error, petitioner contends that the Commission erred in allowing a vacancy increase in the rent ceiling under D.C. Code § 45-1524(a) when one tenant terminated her lease and another began her tenancy under a new lease, but petitioner, as subtenant to both tenants, never surrendered possession of the apartment. We agree and reverse, and therefore do not reach petitioner's other claims of error.

I

In 1979 Shannon & Luchs, the landlord-intervenor, leased an apartment in the Columbia Plaza Apartments to Marian Clark. In June 1981 Clark subleased the apartment on a month-to-month basis to petitioner Stella Guerra for $379.50 per month. Pursuant to the sublease agreement, Guerra made her rent payments directly to Shannon & Luchs. The payments were never more than the monthly rental that Shannon & Luchs charged Clark.

A few months later Shannon & Luchs raised the rent to $418 per month, effective November 1, 1981, and Guerra began paying that amount. That increase was made pursuant to D.C. Code § 45-1517(b) (1981), which provides that a landlord may annually increase the rent ceiling¹ for an apartment by a percentage equal to the most recent annual increase in the Consumer Price Index, up to a maximum of ten percent. The 1981 increase is not challenged in this appeal.

On March 2, 1982, Clark gave notice to Shannon & Luchs of her intention to terminate the lease on March 31. Shannon & Luchs then leased the apartment to Eva Csatary, and Csatary in turn subleased it back to Guerra, who remained in possession of the apartment for the entire time. This sublease agreement was identical to the prior one; both were written on Shannon & Luchs "Sub-Lease Agreement" forms.

With the change of tenants, Shannon & Luchs increased the rent to $466 per month, effective April 1, 1982. This increase, known as a "vacancy increase," was based on D.C. Code § 45-1524(a) (1981), which provides that the landlord may adjust the rent ceiling "[w]hen a tenant vacates a rental unit on his or her own initiative. . . ." It is this April 1982 rent increase which is at the heart of this case.

Seven months later, on November 1, 1982, Shannon & Luchs imposed another rent increase, raising the rent to $507 per month. This cost-of-living increase, like the one in November 1981, was based on D.C. Code § 15-1517(b). Guerra contends that because the April 1982 increase was improper, the November 1982 increase was also improper because it was calculated on the basis of the April increase.

On January 14, 1983, Csatary issued an eviction notice to Guerra, giving her ninety days to vacate the apartment.² Instead of moving out, however, Guerra filed a complaint with the Rental Accommodations Office against both Csatary and Shannon & Luchs. The complaint charged that both the April 1982 and the November 1982 rent increases had been implemented in violation of the Rental Housing Act. She maintained that the April increase was in violation of D.C.Code §§ 45-1524 (permitting a rent ceiling increase only after a vacancy), 45-1519(g) (prohibiting the implementation of a rent increase within 180 days after a prior increase), 45-1516(e) (requiring the landlord to file an amended registration statement within thirty days after a rent increase), and 45-1595(b) (requiring thirty days' advance notice of a rent increase). The November increase, she asserted, was also improper because it was based upon the invalid April increase. Finally, she claimed that Csatary's eviction notice was invalid because Csatary did not have a freehold interest in the apartment, as D.C.Code § 45-1561(d) requires. Pursuant to D.C. Code § 45-1591(a), the complaint prayed for treble damages and a rollback of the rent.

A hearing was held before a Rental Housing Commission hearing examiner,³ and after the hearing the parties submitted additional documentary evidence and further arguments. The hearing examiner then issued her decision, ruling that Csatary's eviction notice was invalid but that the rent increases were proper. The examiner found that Csatary did not have a freehold interest in the apartment and thus was not entitled to evict Guerra under D.C. Code § 45-1561(d). Csatary did not appeal from this ruling, and it is not contested here.⁴

With respect to the vacancy increase of April 1, 1982, the examiner concluded that Guerra, as a subtenant, had no greater rights under the lease than Clark, the tenant. She ruled, therefore, that when Clark vacated the premises, Guerra was deemed to have vacated them also, and that the vacancy increase was proper under D.C. Code § 45-1524(a). The examiner made no ruling with regard to Guerra's assertions that the increase was in violation of D.C. Code §§ 45-1519(g), 45-1516(e), and 45-1595(b).

Guerra appealed to the Rental Housing Commission, raising again all of the issues stated in the complaint. The Commission held, however, that there were only two issues presented: (1) whether there was a vacancy under section 45-1524(a), entitling Shannon & Luchs to impose a vacancy increase, and (2) whether section 45-1519(g), which provides that no rent increase may be implemented within 180 days after a prior increase, prohibited the imposition of the vacancy increase in this case.

On the first issue, two of the Commissioners agreed with the hearing examiner that Guerra's rights were the same as Clark's, so that when Clark vacated the apartment, Guerra was deemed to have vacated it also. One Commissioner dissented on the ground that there was no vacancy because Guerra had never actually left the apartment. He reasoned that landlords are allowed a vacancy increase under section 45-1524 only to recover rent losses due to the vacancy. Therefore, when a landlord, as in this case, suffers no rent loss due to a vacancy, the landlord is not entitled to a vacancy increase.

The majority of the Commission also ruled that the vacancy increase was not in violation of section 45-1519(g). The dissenting Commissioner, pointing out that the April 1982 vacancy increase had followed the November 1981 cost-of-living increase by only 150 days, concluded that it was premature as well as invalid:

The vacancy rent increase should not have been imposed at all. The majority compounds its error by permitting it earlier than the law allows.

II

The principal issue presented on this appeal is whether a landlord may implement a vacancy increase in the rent ceiling for a rental unit under D.C.Code § 45-1524(a) when there has been a change in tenants, but the rental unit has never actually become vacant because a subtenant. common to both tenants, has remained in possession of the rental unit. We hold that no vacancy increase can be made under these circumstances.

D.C.Code § 45-1524(a) (1981) provides in pertinent part:

When a tenant vacates a rental unit on his or her own initiative . . . the rent ceiling may, at the election of the landlord, [be increased by] 10 percent. . . .⁵

On the basis of this provision, Shannon & Luchs increased the rent ceiling as well as the rent of the Guerra apartment, effective April 1, 1982, even though the apartment was never vacant for a single day during tie change in tenants.

It is a rule of statutory construction that courts must follow the plain and ordinary meaning of a statute because that is the meaning intended by the legislature. Swinson v. United States, 4811 A.2d 1160, 1163 (D.C.1984); In re Estate of Glover, 470 A.2d 743, 749 (D.C.1983); see Caminetti v. United Stales, 242 U.S. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct. 192, 61 L.Ed. 442 (1917). Although the word "vacate" is nowhere defined in the Rental Housing Act, its ordinary meaning, as applied to a dwelling, is "[t]o move out; to make vacant or empty; to leave, especially, to surrender possession by removal; lo cease from occupancy." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1388 (5th ed. 1979); cf. Wayne Tenants Council v. Mayor of Wayne, 180 N.J.Super. 128, 136, 4113 A.2d 84.1, 848 (1981) (under a local ordinance, la] vacancy is defined . . . `to have occurred only if said unit has become vacant and unoccupied by reason of the fact that . . . any tenant . . . [has] voluntarily surrendered possession and removed therefrom'" temphasis added)). In this case, although the tenant-sublessor Clark surrendered her lease with Shannon & Luchs, the sublessee Guerra⁶ never moved out or gave tin possession of the apartment consequently, it never became empty or unoccupied. We hold that because there was no actual vacancy, there could be no vacancy increase under D.C.Code § 45-1524(a)⁷ Our reading of the statute is supported by another basic rule of statutory construction: that statutory provisions must not be viewed in isolation, but together with related provisions. Carey v. Crane Service Co., 457 A.2d 1102, 1108 (D.C.1983); Howard v. Riggs National Bank, 432 A.2d 701, 709 (D.C.1981); Citizens Ass'n of Georgetown v. Zoning Commission, 392 A.2d 1027, 1033 (D.C.1978) (en banc). There are several related provisions that bear on our decision.

One of the stated...