ORDER
The above captioned appeal having come before the Commission on
Landlord-Tenant Affairs for Montgomery County, Maryland (“the
Commission”), pursuant to Chapter 29, Sections 29-10(b), 29-14, 29-16,
29-18 through 29-26, and 29-48, of the Montgomery County Code, 2001, as
amended (“County Code”), and the Commission having considered the
testimony and evidence of record, it is therefore, this 17h
day of May, 2002, found, determined, and ordered, as
follows:
BACKGROUND
On January 31, 2002, the Department of Housing and Community Affairs
(the “Department”) issued notice to Baljit Kochhar (the
“Appellant”), owner of 19045 Partridge Wood Drive, Germantown, MD
20874; 11474 Brundidge Terrace, Germantown, MD 20876; 20192 Club Hill
Drive, Germantown, MD 20874; and 13419 Lowfield Terrace, Germantown, MD
20874 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Properties”),
licensed single-family rental facilities in Montgomery County, Maryland,
informing her that her Rental Facility Licenses for the Properties,
Rental Facility License No. 018619, Rental Facility License No. 018616,
Rental Facility License No. 018617, and Rental Facility License No.
018618, would be revoked unless, within 10 calendar days she: (1)
corrected and eliminated any and all outstanding violations of Chapter
26, Housing and Building and
Maintenance Standards, of the Montgomery County Code, 1997, as
amended (“Housing Code”), at 19045 Partridge Wood Drive, Germantown,
MD 20874; (2) paid all of the fines imposed by the District Court of
Maryland relative to the civil citations issued by the Department; and
(3) refunded to the Housing Opportunities Commission (“HOC”) and
Robin L. Floyd, tenant at 19045 Partridge Wood Drive, Germantown, MD
20874, all rent payments paid by them to her, her agents or assigns, at
any time after July 31, 2001, in violation of the Abatement Order issued
by the District Court on July 31, 2001.
On
February 12, 2002
, the Department sent the Appellant a
notice that due to her failure to comply with all the requirements in
the
January 31, 2002
, notice, her four Rental Facility
Licenses were being revoked.
In response to the License
Revocation notice, on
February 22, 2002
, the Appellant filed a formal appeal to
the Commission. The
Appellant is seeking an Order from the Commission reversing the
Department’s revocation of the Rental Facility Licenses for the
Properties.
Pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 29-25 of the
County
Code
, the Commission convened a public
hearing which began on
March 4, 2002
, and concluded on that date.
Present at the hearing and offering testimony and evidence were
the Appellant, Baljit Kochhar, and five (5) witnesses subpoenaed by the
Commission: Housing Code
Enforcement Inspectors Robert Dejter and Wright Jolly, from the
Department’s Division of Housing and Code Enforcement (“Code
Enforcement”); Robin L. Floyd, current tenant at 19045 Partridge Wood
Drive, Germantown, MD 20874 (the “Partridge Wood Drive Property”),
and Melissa Combs and Danny Hampden, former tenants at the Partridge
Wood Drive Property. The
Appellant was represented at the hearing by attorney Rand L. Gelber.
Noting the Appellant’s objection, the Commission entered into the
record of the hearing four (4) exhibits from the Department and
Commission witnesses: the
case file compiled by the Department relative to the revocation of the
Appellant’s rental licenses, identified as Commission’s Exhibit No.
1; the case file for the Partridge Wood Drive Property, Case No. 25672,
compiled by the Department’s Division of Code Enforcement, identified
as Commission’s Exhibit No. 2; the case file for 13419 Lowfield
Terrace, Germantown, MD 20874 (the “Lowfield Terrace Property”),
Case No. 31290, compiled by the Department’s Division of Code
Enforcement, identified as Commission’s Exhibit No. 3; and a receipt
for partial payment of August 2001 rent, offered by Commission witness,
Danny Hampden, former tenant at the Partridge Wood Drive Property,
identified as Commission’s Exhibit No. 4.
The Commission also accepted into evidence at the hearing three (3)
exhibits offered by the Appellant: an
11-page inspection report from the Housing Opportunities Commission
(“HOC”), dated October 9, 2001, for the Partridge Wood Drive
Property, identified as Appellant’s Exhibit No. 1; a work order dated
August 11, 2001, for repair work at the Partridge Wood Drive Property,
totaling $700.00, from Khalsa Construction, identified as Appellant’s
Exhibit No. 2; and, a photocopy of two checks payable to Erick Little,
the first, in the amount of $450.00, dated September 15, 2001, with the
notation “House repair 19045 Partridge Wood Dr.,” and the second, in
the amount of $1,500.00, dated October 2, 2001, with the notation
“Carpet replacement 19045 Partridge Wood Dr.,” identified as
Appellant’s Exhibit No. 3.
Furthermore, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 2A-10(d) and
29-25(e) of the County Code, the Commission extended the time period
within which it would decide this matter for issuance of its Decision
and Order.
FINDINGS OF
FACT
Based on the testimony and evidence of record, the Commission makes the
following findings of fact:
1.
The Appellant is the owner
of the Properties. Although
the Appellant testified at the hearing that she no longer owns the
Properties, records from the Maryland State Department of Assessments
and Taxation indicate that she does.
2.
On
May 19, 2000
, the Department issued the Appellant a
Notice of Violation containing 33 violations of the Housing Code at the
Partridge Wood Drive Property, with instructions to the Appellant to
abate those violations by
July 1, 2000
;
3.
The 33 Housing Code
violations at the Partridge Wood Drive Property first cited by the
Department on May 19, 2000, in a Notice of Violation, sent to and
received by the Appellant, were not corrected by the Appellant for
nearly one and one-half (1½) years, until on or about October 9, 2001,
the date of the HOC inspection (See Appellant’s Exhibit No. 1).
4.
The
Commission finds that the Housing Code violations at the Partridge Wood
Drive Property were corrected on or about
October 9, 2001
, the date of the HOC inspection.
5.
The Appellant’s failure
to correct numerous Housing Code violations in the Partridge Wood Drive
Property for nearly one and one-half (1½) years after first being cited
by the Department, constitutes a serious violation of Chapter 29, Landlord-Tenant Relations, of the County Code.
6.
On
April 13, 2001
, the Department issued the Appellant a
Notice of Violation containing 16 violations of the Housing Code at the
Lowfield Terrace Property with instructions to the Appellant to abate
those violations by
May 14, 2001
.
7.
The Commission finds that
as of
September 7, 2001
, the date of Inspector Wright Jolly’s
most recent inspection and nearly 5 months after the Notice of Violation
had been issued to the Appellant, only 2 of the 16 Housing Code
violations had been corrected.
8.
The Appellant’s failure
to correct numerous Housing Code violations in the Lowfield Terrace
Property for nearly 5 months after first being cited by the Department,
constitutes a serious violation of Chapter 29, Landlord-Tenant
Relations, of the County Code.
9.
Although the Appellant
testified that all of the Housing Code violations at the Lowfield
Terrace Property had been corrected sometime “last year,” she failed
to provide any probative evidence, such as paid invoices, receipts, work
orders, and the like, to support her assertion, even though such
documentation was specifically requested by the Commission (See pages 75
and 76 of Commission’s Exhibit No. 1).
However, in the absence of a re-inspection by the Department, or
evidence to the contrary, the Commission finds that the Housing Code
violations at the Lowfield Terrace Property had been corrected as of the
date of this hearing.
10.
There is no evidence in
the record of these proceedings regarding the existence of any Housing
Code violations at 11474 Brundidge Terrace,
Germantown
,
MD
20876
(the “Brundidge Terrace Property”),
and no testimony or evidence was provided by the Appellant or the
Commission’s witnesses regarding this rental property.
11.
There is no evidence in
the record of these proceedings regarding the existence of any Housing
Code violations at
20192 Club Hill Drive
,
Germantown
,
MD
20874
(the “Club Hill Property”), and no
testimony or evidence was provided by the Commission’s witnesses
regarding this rental property. The
Commission notes that the Appellant testified that this property had
recently burned down and was, therefore, no longer rented; however, she
failed to provide any probative evidence in support of this assertion.
12.
The
Commission chooses to make no findings regarding whether the Appellant
complied with the Abatement Order
issued by the District Court on
July 31, 2001
. The
determination as to whether or not the Appellant is in compliance with
that Order, including the issue of whether or not rent was properly
collected from affected tenants and/or HOC at the Partridge Wood Drive
Property, is solely a matter for the Court to decide.
13.
The lease agreement
currently in use for the Partridge Wood Drive Property (See pages 124
and 125 of Commission’s Exhibit No. 1) is not in compliance with
Chapter 29, Landlord-Tenant
Relations, of the County Code, or the applicable provisions of Title
8, Landlord and Tenant, of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of
Maryland, 1999, as amended (“State Code”).
The Appellant failed to provide the Commission with a copy of
the lease agreement currently in use at the Lowfield Terrace Property,
Brundidge Terrace Property and Club Hill Drive Property, although such
documents were specifically requested by the Commission (See pages 75
and 76 of Commission’s Exhibit No. 1).
Based on the lease used for the Partridge Wood Drive Property,
and based on Appellant’s testimony that her daughter purchased the
form leases from a
stationary supply store, the Commission finds that it is likely that the
leases used at all of the Appellant’s Properties are not in compliance
with Chapter 29, Landlord-Tenant
Relations, of the County Code, or the applicable provisions of the
State Code.
CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW
The Commission makes the following conclusions of law based upon
consideration of the testimony and evidence contained in the record:
1.
The County has established
the Housing Code to safeguard the health and safety of occupants of
occupied dwellings and the general public which sets forth the minimum
standards for the maintenance, repair and upkeep to those dwellings.
The County is also authorized to inspect the condition of
dwellings, nonresidential structures, and premises located in the
County, and conducts periodic inspections of those dwellings to
determine if minimum standards are being maintained. (Section 26-4 of
County
Code
).
2.
The County also requires
that landlords obtain a license to operate a Rental Facility in the
County. The issuance of the
Rental Facility License is conditioned, in part, on the property being
in compliance with all applicable laws, including the Housing Code, and,
“If an inspection indicates that any rental housing does not comply
with all applicable laws, the Director may revoke the license or take
other remedial action under Section 29-25.”
(Section 29-22(d) of the
County
Code
).
3.
The Appellant’s failure
to make needed and necessary repairs to abate the Housing Code
violations at the Partridge Wood Drive Property and the Lowfield Terrace
Property, in a timely manner after repeated notice from the Department,
constitutes a significant and substantial violation of Chapters 26, Housing
and Building Maintenance Standards, and 29, Landlord-Tenant
Relations, of the County Code, which is grounds for the revocation
of the Rental Facility Licenses for those properties.
4.
The Appellant's failure to
use lease agreements at her Properties that comply with applicable
County and State landlord-tenant laws can be the basis for a revocation
of her Rental Facility Licenses.
ORDER
In view of the foregoing, the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs
hereby orders that:
1.
The Department's
revocation of the Rental Facility Licenses for the Properties is hereby REVERSED,
and the Rental Facility Licenses are REINSTATED until
June 30, 2002
, the date current licenses expire.
2.
The Department must not
re-issue Rental Facility Licenses for the Properties for the period
July 1, 2002
to
June 30, 2003
, until:
a).
The Properties have been
inspected by the Department and determined to be in complete compliance
with the Housing Code and all other applicable laws; and,
b).
The lease agreements in
use at the Properties have been reviewed by the Department and
determined to be in complete compliance with all applicable laws.
3.
If, after Rental Facility
Licenses have been re-issued, any Housing Code violations are discovered
at any of the Properties, they must be corrected in accordance with the
customary time-frames and instructions set forth by the Department.
Failure to complete any repairs within the time-frames set by the
Department constitutes non-compliance with this Order and is grounds for
the Department to immediately revoke the Rental Facility License for any
of the Properties.
The foregoing decision was concurred in unanimously by Commissioner Tina
Smith-Nelson, Commissioner Daryl Steinbraker, and Commissioner Donna
Henry-Wright, Panel Chairperson.
The Appellant is hereby notified that Section 29-48 of the
County
Code
declares that failure to comply with
this Decision and Order is punishable by a $500.00 civil fine Class A
violation as set forth in Section 1-19 of the
County
Code
. This civil fine may, at the discretion
of the Commission, be imposed on a daily basis until there is compliance
with this Order.
In addition to the issuance of a
$500.00 civil fine Class A violation, should the Commission determine
that the Appellant has not, within thirty (30) calendar days of the date
of this Decision and Order, made a bona fide effort to comply with the
terms of this Decision and Order, it may also refer the matter to the
Office of the County Attorney for additional legal enforcement.
Any party aggrieved by a final
action of the Commission may file an administrative appeal to the
Circuit Court for
Montgomery County
,
Maryland
within thirty (30) days from the date of
this Decision and Order, pursuant to the Maryland Rules governing
administrative appeals.
_________________________________
Donna Henry-Wright, Panel Chairperson
Top of Page
Index
of License Revocation Cases