Robinson v. Diamond Housing Corp.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Property

PropertyLandlord and TenantEvictionRetaliatory Evictiontenant at sufferancevoid leasethirty days' notice to quitsummary judgment

Facts

Diamond Housing had earlier sought possession for nonpayment of rent, but Robinson prevailed because the lease was void and unenforceable under Brown v. Southall. The landlord then served Robinson with a thirty days' notice to quit and brought a new possession action after she did not leave. Robinson answered, requested a jury trial, and claimed the eviction was retaliatory because she had prevailed in the prior case and the housing violations remained uncorrected. In support of summary judgment, the landlord filed an affidavit stating Robinson had been served, that the landlord was unwilling to make repairs, and that it did not wish to continue renting the premises; Robinson filed no opposing affidavits.

Issue

Whether a landlord may obtain summary judgment for possession against a tenant at sufferance, after a void lease and thirty days' notice to quit, when the landlord states it wants to withdraw the uninhabitable premises from the rental market. Also, whether the tenant may assert the retaliatory-eviction defense of Edwards v. Habib in those circumstances.

Rule

When a lease has been determined void and unenforceable under Brown v. Southall, the occupant becomes a tenant at sufferance, and that tenancy may be terminated on thirty days' notice. Where the landlord is unwilling or unable to make the premises habitable and seeks to withdraw unsafe, uninhabitable property from the rental market, the Edwards v. Habib retaliatory defense is not available; and if the tenant presents no opposing affidavits, summary judgment is proper when no material factual issue exists as to the landlord's motive.

🔒

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 Cleveland, Mira Patel rented an apartment from Lakeview Terrace Homes under a lease later held void because the unit was unsafe and unlawfully rented from the outset. Two months after that ruling, the company served Mira with a 30-day notice to quit and then filed an action for possession when she stayed.

What is Mira's status after the lease was declared void, and may the landlord terminate her occupancy on these facts?

Explanation. The majority opinion states that once a lease is established as void and unenforceable because the premises were unlawfully rented in an uninhabitable condition, the occupant becomes a tenant at sufferance. Like any other tenancy at sufferance, that tenancy may be terminated on 30 days' notice. Nothing in the opinion gives the tenant a continuing contractual right to remain until repairs are made. (Derived from Robinson v. Diamond Housing Corp. (n.d.).)