Does this nullify my DC apartment lease?
August 13, 2008 8:04 AM Subscribe
Is my lease null and void? (DC lease question)
Background: I'm in a dispute with my landlord. Long story short: I got a new job in a new city, he will only let me out of the lease by penalizing me 2 months rent IN ADDITION to any lost rent he suffers (he's punitive & malicious). In the meantime, I'm trying to protect myself by lining up new tenants for him on my own (will provide rental applications to him shortly).
Now to the question: In the District of Columbia, it is my understanding that landlords need to file for a Basic Business License with the city. I am almost certain that my landlord (a condo owner/investor who has only one rental property) has not done this.
Nor has my landlord, apparently, registered his unit as exempt from rent control. See page two of this document.
My problem is that on my lease, I initialed a statement saying that the landlord had advised me that the unit was not subject to rent control. That's true, but the statement goes on to say that the approved rent control exemption certificate has been attached to the lease.
So is the lease agreement illegal because the landlord hasn't filed these important papers with the city?
What I want to avoid is a huge judgment against me (this guy is malicious, and would rather have me suffer than have nice new tenants).
Background: I'm in a dispute with my landlord. Long story short: I got a new job in a new city, he will only let me out of the lease by penalizing me 2 months rent IN ADDITION to any lost rent he suffers (he's punitive & malicious). In the meantime, I'm trying to protect myself by lining up new tenants for him on my own (will provide rental applications to him shortly).
Now to the question: In the District of Columbia, it is my understanding that landlords need to file for a Basic Business License with the city. I am almost certain that my landlord (a condo owner/investor who has only one rental property) has not done this.
Nor has my landlord, apparently, registered his unit as exempt from rent control. See page two of this document.
My problem is that on my lease, I initialed a statement saying that the landlord had advised me that the unit was not subject to rent control. That's true, but the statement goes on to say that the approved rent control exemption certificate has been attached to the lease.
So is the lease agreement illegal because the landlord hasn't filed these important papers with the city?
What I want to avoid is a huge judgment against me (this guy is malicious, and would rather have me suffer than have nice new tenants).
Definitely talk to a lawyer. You might not even have to spend money on it (right away). Lots of universities have free legal clinics and while they usually won't represent you in court, they can you whether or not it's worth paying a lawyer to do so. Good luck!
posted by Nelsormensch at 8:13 AM on August 13, 2008
posted by Nelsormensch at 8:13 AM on August 13, 2008
From the BBL application you linked, it doesn't look that he would be required to do that unless he is operating as a business and not an individual.
posted by doomtop at 8:17 AM on August 13, 2008
posted by doomtop at 8:17 AM on August 13, 2008
DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition, you can ask them for free.
posted by lee at 8:19 AM on August 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by lee at 8:19 AM on August 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Aren't there any lawyers here? :)
Seriously though, I did a free consultation with a lawyer, and she asked me to check out the landlord's business license and rent control exemption registration. If he had not done either of those, she seemed to think I was in the clear.
HOWEVER, my question is, does my signing the statement referenced above change any of that?
(BTW, the landlord also said that my situation was probably too complex for the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition.)
Thanks guys.
posted by BobbyVan at 8:27 AM on August 13, 2008
Seriously though, I did a free consultation with a lawyer, and she asked me to check out the landlord's business license and rent control exemption registration. If he had not done either of those, she seemed to think I was in the clear.
HOWEVER, my question is, does my signing the statement referenced above change any of that?
(BTW, the landlord also said that my situation was probably too complex for the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition.)
Thanks guys.
posted by BobbyVan at 8:27 AM on August 13, 2008
Additionally, I don't think rent control weighs in on this situation. The landlord is not intending to raise your rent here, just penalize you for terminating your lease early.
posted by doomtop at 8:28 AM on August 13, 2008
posted by doomtop at 8:28 AM on August 13, 2008
Don't listen to what the landlord says. He is obviously going to be biased in his own favor.
posted by doomtop at 8:29 AM on August 13, 2008
posted by doomtop at 8:29 AM on August 13, 2008
Typically, unless there is a specific provision in the lease, when you break the lease the landlord can only ding you for the lost rent, but you need to check on your particular locale. Some landlords take revenge on lease breakers through charges for "repairs." On your way out, photograph every aspect of the apartment. Oh, and see a lawyer, or at the very least some tenant advocacy group.
posted by caddis at 8:33 AM on August 13, 2008
posted by caddis at 8:33 AM on August 13, 2008
Response by poster: @ Doomtop:
I think the point is that every landlord in DC is REQUIRED to register his apartment with the DC Housing Authority. And apparently mine didn't. If he were to ever sue me for terminating the lease early, does the fact that he was illegally operating a rental property absolve me?
posted by BobbyVan at 8:33 AM on August 13, 2008
I think the point is that every landlord in DC is REQUIRED to register his apartment with the DC Housing Authority. And apparently mine didn't. If he were to ever sue me for terminating the lease early, does the fact that he was illegally operating a rental property absolve me?
posted by BobbyVan at 8:33 AM on August 13, 2008
Best answer: I believe that you are absolved if the apartment isn't registered. We took our former landlord to small claims court over an un-refunded security deposit, and the first thing we checked was the registration (unfortunately for us, the apartment was legal).
You can actually sue for all back rent if the apartment is illegal. You might try letting him know about that, and see if he just drops the issue.
As we found out, though, it's really up to the judge--there's one guy in DC who handles these cases, and he fancies himself a law maker. My guess would be that he'd broker a deal where you both walk away with nothing, but, of course, that's just wild speculation.
posted by MrMoonPie at 8:42 AM on August 13, 2008
You can actually sue for all back rent if the apartment is illegal. You might try letting him know about that, and see if he just drops the issue.
As we found out, though, it's really up to the judge--there's one guy in DC who handles these cases, and he fancies himself a law maker. My guess would be that he'd broker a deal where you both walk away with nothing, but, of course, that's just wild speculation.
posted by MrMoonPie at 8:42 AM on August 13, 2008
(BTW, the landlord also said that my situation was probably too complex for the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition.)
Bwahahaaa! Well, that answers it. Run, don't walk, to the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition. Now! Go! Now! They'll probably tell you all about this guy; I'd bet that he's known to them.
does the fact that he was illegally operating a rental property absolve me?
Varies with jurisdiction. Again, the TAC will tell you. Could be yes, on the grounds that the legislation is intended to discourage landlords from doing this and punish those who do; could be no, on the grounds that even if the form and manner of this specific lease renders it void, he and you are still entitled to rely on the protection that an ordinary landlord/tenant contract that is fair to both parties (the terms of which are set in legislation and/or common law) would give you.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 8:44 AM on August 13, 2008
Bwahahaaa! Well, that answers it. Run, don't walk, to the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition. Now! Go! Now! They'll probably tell you all about this guy; I'd bet that he's known to them.
does the fact that he was illegally operating a rental property absolve me?
Varies with jurisdiction. Again, the TAC will tell you. Could be yes, on the grounds that the legislation is intended to discourage landlords from doing this and punish those who do; could be no, on the grounds that even if the form and manner of this specific lease renders it void, he and you are still entitled to rely on the protection that an ordinary landlord/tenant contract that is fair to both parties (the terms of which are set in legislation and/or common law) would give you.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 8:44 AM on August 13, 2008
Response by poster: (BTW, the landlord also said that my situation was probably too complex for the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition.)
Woops, typing too fast. I MEANT the LAWYER said it was too complex.
posted by BobbyVan at 8:58 AM on August 13, 2008
Woops, typing too fast. I MEANT the LAWYER said it was too complex.
posted by BobbyVan at 8:58 AM on August 13, 2008
Best answer: Aren't there any lawyers here? :)
I'm a lawyer, and I even work and attended law school in DC, and moreover I even worked for a semester at the DC Landlord/Tenant clinic doing intake when I was in law school. Nevertheless, I have no idea what the correct answer to your question is. Maybe someone else will pipe in with something helpful after looking at the resources you have linked to, but you are looking for a specific answer to a question that may have never been litigated and in any case is a very specialized area of law that gets lots of nuances applied to it. You should not rely on any answers you get from a lawyer here because they may not be familiar with the DC nuances. (I'm sorry if this sounds strict and uncompromising. I am beginning to get a complex about the fact that just because I am a lawyer people often seem to think I will have answers to their legal questions about areas of the law that I know basically nothing about. Maybe I am just not that smart.)
Mr. MoonPie has given you some helpful advice from his past experience with the system that should be helpful to you. If you are worried about a malicious landlord and having to pay him two or months of rent for breaking what you originally thought was a valid lease on the assumption that the lease is not valid because he never registered his rented unit -- my sincere advice is to get to a lawyer who specializes in DC landlord/tenant law and will have some idea what you are talking about. At a minimum that lawyer, for the fee you pay him, should be able to check out your theory and tell you if it's right, and, if so, write a semi-threatening letter to your landlord advising him to lay off the threats about breaking the "lease" etc. This place should be able to refer you to someone.
Good luck!
posted by onlyconnect at 11:33 AM on August 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'm a lawyer, and I even work and attended law school in DC, and moreover I even worked for a semester at the DC Landlord/Tenant clinic doing intake when I was in law school. Nevertheless, I have no idea what the correct answer to your question is. Maybe someone else will pipe in with something helpful after looking at the resources you have linked to, but you are looking for a specific answer to a question that may have never been litigated and in any case is a very specialized area of law that gets lots of nuances applied to it. You should not rely on any answers you get from a lawyer here because they may not be familiar with the DC nuances. (I'm sorry if this sounds strict and uncompromising. I am beginning to get a complex about the fact that just because I am a lawyer people often seem to think I will have answers to their legal questions about areas of the law that I know basically nothing about. Maybe I am just not that smart.)
Mr. MoonPie has given you some helpful advice from his past experience with the system that should be helpful to you. If you are worried about a malicious landlord and having to pay him two or months of rent for breaking what you originally thought was a valid lease on the assumption that the lease is not valid because he never registered his rented unit -- my sincere advice is to get to a lawyer who specializes in DC landlord/tenant law and will have some idea what you are talking about. At a minimum that lawyer, for the fee you pay him, should be able to check out your theory and tell you if it's right, and, if so, write a semi-threatening letter to your landlord advising him to lay off the threats about breaking the "lease" etc. This place should be able to refer you to someone.
Good luck!
posted by onlyconnect at 11:33 AM on August 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I haven't been admitted to the bar yet, but I'll take a few minutes to parse your situation.
Whether or not the penalty is a term in your lease is going to make a huge difference. If it is not, there is no legal way your landlord can recover anything but lost rent from you. None. Show your lease to your lawyer first, but if it really isn't there, simply refuse to pay. You never agreed to pay it, and he's got no legal right to change the terms of your lease.
If it is a term in the contract, you're in trouble, but you have touched on a few issues which may invalidate the contract.
1) About the BBL. If you read that form carefully, you will note that it only applies to buildings in which there are at least 3 units. If there are less than that in your building, your landlord is not required to file for the BBL with respect to your apartment. If there are more, and he has not done it, you may have grounds for contesting the entire lease on the basis of illegality. Talk to your lawyer in that case.
2) About the rent control form. The document you referenced describes several categories of apartments that are categorically exempt from rent control. These include: units operated by a landlord who manages a total of 4 or fewer units. If your landlord is a "small" landlord like this, he does not have to apply for a rent control exemption and failure to include any documents will not hurt him. If your apartment was built (i.e. building permit issued) after 1980, it is categorically exempt. There are a few other technical exemptions, but most of them apply to public/subsidized housing. If your landlord qualifies for any of these exemptions, whether or not he has applied for/received/attached an exemption is not likely to matter. If he doesn't qualify, but has registered, he's still probably okay. But if he doesn't qualify and hasn't applied, then you might be able to contest the lease for illegality. Again, talk to your lawyer.
In any case, I suggest you take the advice above and talk to a licensed attorney experienced in DC landlord/tenant law.
posted by valkyryn at 12:33 PM on August 13, 2008
Whether or not the penalty is a term in your lease is going to make a huge difference. If it is not, there is no legal way your landlord can recover anything but lost rent from you. None. Show your lease to your lawyer first, but if it really isn't there, simply refuse to pay. You never agreed to pay it, and he's got no legal right to change the terms of your lease.
If it is a term in the contract, you're in trouble, but you have touched on a few issues which may invalidate the contract.
1) About the BBL. If you read that form carefully, you will note that it only applies to buildings in which there are at least 3 units. If there are less than that in your building, your landlord is not required to file for the BBL with respect to your apartment. If there are more, and he has not done it, you may have grounds for contesting the entire lease on the basis of illegality. Talk to your lawyer in that case.
2) About the rent control form. The document you referenced describes several categories of apartments that are categorically exempt from rent control. These include: units operated by a landlord who manages a total of 4 or fewer units. If your landlord is a "small" landlord like this, he does not have to apply for a rent control exemption and failure to include any documents will not hurt him. If your apartment was built (i.e. building permit issued) after 1980, it is categorically exempt. There are a few other technical exemptions, but most of them apply to public/subsidized housing. If your landlord qualifies for any of these exemptions, whether or not he has applied for/received/attached an exemption is not likely to matter. If he doesn't qualify, but has registered, he's still probably okay. But if he doesn't qualify and hasn't applied, then you might be able to contest the lease for illegality. Again, talk to your lawyer.
In any case, I suggest you take the advice above and talk to a licensed attorney experienced in DC landlord/tenant law.
posted by valkyryn at 12:33 PM on August 13, 2008
Response by poster: @ onlyconnect & valkyryn
thanks for your very helpful comments.
this document should be helpful on the matter of the exemption from rent control. apparently, even if an apartment building is categorically exempt (for instance, if it was built after 1980), an application for the exemption must still be filed with the city. (see section 222).
posted by BobbyVan at 1:13 PM on August 13, 2008
thanks for your very helpful comments.
this document should be helpful on the matter of the exemption from rent control. apparently, even if an apartment building is categorically exempt (for instance, if it was built after 1980), an application for the exemption must still be filed with the city. (see section 222).
posted by BobbyVan at 1:13 PM on August 13, 2008
If TENAC doesn't work out, Bread for the City also does landlord-tenant stuff. They might be able to give you some advice or point you in the right direction. Also, the DC Bar Pro Bono Program has a free clinic once a month (more info here). Good luck!
posted by orrnyereg at 2:51 PM on August 13, 2008
posted by orrnyereg at 2:51 PM on August 13, 2008
From my informal study of the law (reading and arguing annoyingly with my gf who actually *is* a lawyer), it would seem that *even if* there was a penalty clause in the contract of that extremity it would be unenforceable. For example, if there was a late fee assessed of say (as an extreme example), half the amount of the monthly rent, the landlord would likely not be able to get that from you if you took the matter to court.
A reasonable fee for advertising expenses and the landlord's inconvenience in an early vacancy of the place is a different matter. But they can't expect to have things enforced like a $1000 per tack hole in the wall on move-out or something. . .even if it's in the contract.
posted by BrandonAbell at 10:57 PM on August 13, 2008
A reasonable fee for advertising expenses and the landlord's inconvenience in an early vacancy of the place is a different matter. But they can't expect to have things enforced like a $1000 per tack hole in the wall on move-out or something. . .even if it's in the contract.
posted by BrandonAbell at 10:57 PM on August 13, 2008
I think unconscionability is the general principle I was referring to.
posted by BrandonAbell at 11:04 PM on August 13, 2008
posted by BrandonAbell at 11:04 PM on August 13, 2008
I don't think it adds much info, but there's an article about tenant rights organizations on DCist.com today.
posted by MrMoonPie at 11:35 AM on August 14, 2008
posted by MrMoonPie at 11:35 AM on August 14, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
There's a reason it's such a total cliche.
Go talk to a lawyer.
posted by Tomorrowful at 8:10 AM on August 13, 2008