Markbreiter v. Woods
| Decision Date | 06 November 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 422.,422. |
| Citation | 163 F.2d 993 |
| Parties | MARKBREITER et al. v. WOODS, Acting Housing Expediter. |
| Court | U.S. Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Henry N. Rapaport, of New York City (Rapaport Brothers, of New York City, on the brief), for complainants.
Charles P. Liff, Chief, Court Review Rent Branch, Office of Rent Control, Office of the Housing Expediter, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before MARIS, Chief Judge, and MAGRUDER, Judge.
Heard at New York October 22, 1947.
This complaint, which was filed under Section 204(e) of the Emergency Price Control Act, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 924 (e), seeks a declaratory judgment that an order of the Area Rent Director of the New York City Defense Rental Area issued October 23, 1946, fixing the maximum rent for Apartment No. 9 at 123 East Boardwalk, Long Beach, New York, at $133 per month furnished, was invalid. The order in question purported by its express terms to be effective as of November 1, 1943.
In reliance upon the order one William Dauman, a tenant of the complainants for the summer season of 1946, obtained in the City Court of the City of New York, in a suit under Section 205(e) of the Emergency Price Control Act, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 925(e) to recover treble damages for overcharge of rent, a judgment for $529.66, with interest, counsel fees and costs. Upon the complainants' application the City Court gave leave to file the present complaint in this court. The respondent answered and the complainants have moved for judgment on the pleadings.
The order under attack was issued under Section 5(d) of the Rent Regulation1 upon the Rent Director's initiative. As we have said, it was issued on October 23, 1946, but purported to fix the rent retroactively from November 1, 1943, a period of nearly three years which included the period of Dauman's occupancy of the apartment. The complainants urge that the order is invalid in toto because issued without procedural due process and that in any event it is invalid to the extent that it purports to fix the maximum rent retroactively for the period from November 1, 1943, to October 23, 1946.
The latter objection is well taken. Section 5(d) of the Rent Regulation does not authorize the Administrator to fix maximum rents retroactively. On the contrary, as counsel for the respondent conceded at bar, orders under Section 5(d) may validly be given prospective effect only. Indeed in so stating counsel merely followed prior formal rulings of the Administrator.2 As a matter of fact the pleadings indicate that the Rent Director himself subsequently, although somewhat ambiguously, sought to eliminate the retroactive feature of the order here under attack.3 It follows that the order of October 23, 1946, must be held to be invalid to the extent that it purported to have retroactive effect.
This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the complainants' contention that the order is wholly invalid because issued without due process. For between October 23, 1946, and the subsequent termination of rent control over the complainants' apartment, the apartment was not rented to any tenant....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. McCrillis
...Price Control Act. But the Price Administrator never purported to authorize retroactive orders in this situation. See Markbreiter v. Woods, Em.App., 1947, 163 F.2d 993. Resuming the chronological narrative, the United States filed its complaint in this case on March 21, 1950. It was alleged......
-
Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. Freehill
...before it, the complaint will be dismissed as moot. See J. J. Schmitt & Co. v. Turney, Em.App., 1948, 169 F.2d 425; Markbreiter v. Woods, Em.App., 1947, 163 F.2d 993; Waseca Realty Corp. v. Porter, Em.App. 1946, 157 F.2d 67; Fasons Realty Corp. v. Bowles, Em.App.1944, 146 F.2d 499. It is he......
-
Creedon v. Bowman, Civ. A. No. 6765.
...by the defendant to his tenants, on the basis of a retroactive order. Such an order has been held invalid. Markbreiter et al. v. Woods, Acting Housing Expediter, Em.App., 163 F.2d 993. However, there are other allegations in the complaint which, if proved, would entitle the Housing Expedite......
-
MATTER OF PAN AMER. MAG. BLDG.(BROOKS COSTUME CO.)
...be made retroactive to the date of the application would at least raise serious questions, I think, as to its validity (See Markbreiter v. Woods, 163 F.2d 993 and Peters v. Porter, 157 F.2d 186, Special circumstances some times may justify making a rent increase effective as of a date prior......