Preview:

No. 145, September Term, 2000 Chander Kant, et al. v. Montgomery County, et al.

[Whether The Judgment Of The Circuit Court For Montgomery County, In An Action To Review An Adjudicatory Decision By The Montgomery County Commission On LandlordTenant Affairs, Is Appealable To The Court Of Special Appeals]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 145 September Term, 2000 ___________________________________________

CHANDER KANT, et al.

v.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, et al.

__________________________________________ Bell, C.J., Eldridge Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia, JJ. ___________________________________________ Opinion by Eldridge, J. __________________________________________ Filed: August 16, 2001

This is an action for judicial review of an adjudicatory administrative decision by the Montgomery County Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs. The issue before us is whether the judgment of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, upholding the administrative decision, was appealable to the Court of Special Appeals. The Court of Special Appeals,

initially in an unreported opinion and later in a reported opinion, held that the Circuit Court's judgment was not appealable and dismissed the appeal. Kant v. Montgomery County, 139 Md. App. 157, 774 A.2d 1229 (2001). We shall reverse. The petitioners, Chander and Ashima Kant (hereafter referred to as the landlords), owned a single-family residential property in Montgomery County, Maryland, which they rented to the respondent, Barbara Wetherell (hereafter referred to as the tenant). Disputes The

arose between the landlords and the tenant concerning claimed defects in the property.

landlords then sent the tenant a notice to vacate the premises, allegedly because the tenant made "false or incorrect assertion[s] of defects in the property." The tenant responded by

filing a complaint with the Office of Landlord-Tenant Affairs of the Montgomery County Department of Housing and Community Development, contending that the landlords'

termination of her lease was in retaliation for her complaints about defects in the premises. The Department, after determining that the dispute could not be conciliated, referred the matter to the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs. At a hearing on May 12, 1998, the Commission heard testimony from the tenant

-2Wetherell, from a neighbor, from a former tenant of the premises, and from three inspectors of the Department of Housing and Community Development. Thereafter, the Commission

issued a nineteen page opinion and a final decision in favor of the tenant. As summarized in the reported opinion by the Court of Special Appeals ( Kant v. Montgomery County, supra, 139 Md. App. at ___, 774 A.2d at ___),

"the Commission found that [the landlords] had delivered a defective tenancy to Ms. Wetherell, failed to correct the deficiencies during her tenancy, and retaliated against her when she requested repairs by sending her a notice to quit and vacate; all of which were in violation of Chapter 29, Landlord-Tenant Relations, of the Montgomery County Code. It then concluded that [the landlords'] failure to make the necessary repairs prevented Ms. Wetherell from using the faulty appliances and `reduc[ed] the value of the leasehold for which [she] was paying rent by 15%.' It further determined that [the landlords] had breached the lease and that the lease agreement was terminated. It then ordered [the landlords] to refund Ms. Wetherell her entire security deposit, plus interest, and pay her $4,502.00 (representing a 15% refund of the reduced value of her leasehold during the defective tenancy, $1,000.00 in attorney's fees, and $982.00 in relocation costs). "The Commission also found that [the landlords] had engaged in a pattern of retaliatory practices against their tenants and ordered them to refrain from issuing notices to quit and vacate in response to tenant repair requests, to `submit to the Department for review and approval [for two years] . . . all lease agreements, notices to vacate and security deposit dispositions for any and all rental facilities they own, operate or manage in Montgomery County,' and to repair any housing code violations when requested to do so by the Department."

The landlords then filed, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, this action seeking judicial review of the Commission's decision. Montgomery County filed a motion Following a

in the Circuit Court to intervene as a defendant, and the motion was granted.

-3hearing, the Circuit Court issued an opinion and order affirming the decision of the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs. The landlords appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, raising several issues relating to the decisions by the Circuit Court and the Commission. No party raised in the Court of The

Special Appeals any issue concerning the appealability of the Circuit Court's judgment.

Court of Special Appeals, however, sua sponte addressed the appealability issue, and, in an unreported opinion filed on April 27, 2001, the appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that, in light of Maryland Code (1974, 1998 Repl. Vol.),

Download Kant v. Montgomery County.pdf

Maryland Law