Brown v. Southall Realty

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Property

PropertyLandlord and TenantIllegal LeaseHousing Codelandlord-tenantillegal contractvoid leasehousing regulations

Facts

The parties stipulated that $230 in rent was in arrears, but the tenant argued no rent was due because the lease was illegal. Evidence at trial showed that before the lease was signed, the landlord was on notice of Housing Code violations on the premises, including an obstructed commode, a broken railing, and insufficient ceiling height in the basement, and those violations remained uncorrected at trial. A housing inspector testified that the basement violations prohibited use of the entire basement as a dwelling place. The owner had also submitted a sworn statement to the Housing Division that the basement was unoccupied and would remain vacant until the violations were corrected, yet the landlord later represented that a basement room was habitable.

Issue

Whether a lease is enforceable where, at the time it was made, the landlord knew the premises were being rented in violation of District of Columbia Housing Regulations requiring rented habitations to be safe, sanitary, and properly maintained. Also, whether the appeal should be heard despite the tenant's departure from the premises because the possession judgment could preclusively determine the lease's validity and that rent was due.

Rule

An illegal contract made in violation of a statutory or regulatory prohibition designed for police or regulatory purposes is void and confers no rights on the wrongdoer. In determining whether a penal regulation implies a prohibition rendering the act void, courts look to the subject matter, the evil to be remedied, and the legislative purpose; where District of Columbia Housing Regulations require that rented premises be safe, sanitary, and properly maintained, a lease made when known preexisting conditions violate those regulations is void and unenforceable.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Washington, D.C., Linden Court Properties leased a rowhouse apartment to Tasha Cole. Before the lease was signed, the company had received inspection notices stating that the unit's only toilet overflowed, the interior stair guard was missing, and exposed wiring created a safety hazard, but it rented the unit anyway without making repairs.

If Linden Court Properties later sues Tasha for possession based on nonpayment of rent, what is the strongest argument about the lease's enforceability?

Explanation. The majority held that a lease entered into when the landlord knows of preexisting housing-regulation violations making the premises unsafe, unsanitary, or improperly maintained is an illegal contract and therefore void. The court emphasized the regulatory purpose of the housing rules and refused to enforce a lease that would undermine that purpose. That reasoning makes the landlord unable to rely on the lease in a nonpayment possession action.