Brown v. Housing Opportunities Commission

⁵⁷² WILNER, Judge. Maryland Code, § 8-402.1 of the Real Property Article (1996 Repl.Vol., 1997 Supp.) vests authority in the District Court, under certain circumstances, to order the eviction of a tenant for breach of the tenant’s lease. Section 8-402.1(b) provides, in relevant part, that “[i]f the court determines that the tenant breached the terms of the lease and that the breach was substantial and warrants an eviction, the court shall give judgment for the restitution of the possession of the premises.... ” The issue before us is whether, after finding a substantial breach of the lease, the court may nevertheless decline to order an eviction on the ground that the breach, though substantial, does not warrant that relief. We shall answer that question in the affirmative and, as a result, shall reverse a contrary judgment entered by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.

BACKGROUND In July, 1980, Saundra Brown and her family moved into a townhouse at 9708 Ambergate Court in Gaithersburg. The property was, and remains, owned by respondent, Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County (HOC). Because her rent was subsidized by the Government and was based on the amount of income earned by the persons sharing the residence, Ms. Brown was required to list in the lease the persons occupying the property, to file an annual declaration of the household members and their incomes, and to notify HOC immediately of any change in her family composition. In the 1980 and 1985 leases and in the declarations filed through 1989, Ms. Brown listed her son Gabriel as a resident.

In 1989, according to her, Gabriel moved out and, though visiting her from time to time, has, since then, lived elsewhere. He was therefore not included as a resident on her posi>-1989 declarations, and his income, we presume, was not counted in determining Ms. Brown’s rent. The lease contained a number of other covenants and restrictions, among which were Ms. Brown’s agreement (1) to ⁵⁷³ conduct herself, and cause other persons in the premises with her consent to conduct themselves, in a manner that will not disturb “neighbors’ peaceful enjoyment of their accommodations,” (2) not to engage in or permit unlawful activity in the unit or common areas, (3) not to use controlled substances, drugs, or alcohol in any way that interferes with the rights of others, (4) not to provide accommodations for boarders or lodgers, and (5) to prevent any member of her household or guests from violating any provisions of the lease. In that last regard, the lease stated that a violation by any guest or member of her household would constitute a violation by her.

A 1996 amendment to the lease specified that illegal drug or criminal activity “off the premises” was cause for eviction. Article X provided that HOC could and would terminate the lease for the tenant’s “material noncompliance with the terms of [the] Lease.” Material noncompliance was defined to include permitting unauthorized persons to live in the unit as well as “serious repeated interference with the rights and quiet enjoyment of other residents.” This case arose from an altercation that occurred on January 9, 1997. Exactly what happened is not entirely clear. From the police report, it appears that, while Ms. Brown and Gabriel were driving along a public road about two blocks from Ms. Brown’s home, they encountered one John Favilla, who had pulled his car over to clean his windshield but may have been partially blocking the road.

Words were exchanged, whereupon Gabriel got out of the car and began punching Mr. Favilla in the face. Unfortunately for Gabriel, the event was observed by two county police officers, who, when Gabriel refused to desist, intervened. Gabriel then pushed the officers. Notwithstanding that she had a baby in the car, Ms. Brown joined the fray.

According to the police report, she jumped on top of the two officers, struck one of them in the rib cage with her knee, punched the other, and kicked Mr. Favilla, who was on the bottom of the pile. Gabriel and his mother were arrested and charged with assault. In the course of a search, marijuana was found in Gabriel’s pocket, so he was charged with unlawful possession ⁵⁷⁴ as well. In all of the documents arising from this event, Gabriel gave his address as 9703 Ambergate Court.

On January 29, 1997, before any of the criminal charges were adjudicated, HOC sent a letter to Ms. Brown terminating her lease and giving her 30 days to vacate the property. According to the letter, that decision was based on the violation of the various covenants noted above—engaging in unlawful activity, disturbing the neighborhood, having a controlled substance, and providing accommodation to a boarder. When Ms. Brown failed to vacate, HOC filed a complaint in the District Court seeking restitution of the property. By the time of trial on HOC’s complaint, the criminal charges had been resolved.

Gabriel was convicted of assaulting Mr. Favilla and of possessing marijuana. Ms. Brown pled guilty to hindering an arrest and received probation without judgment. The issues raised in the District Court were whether the altercation or the marijuana possession, which, as noted, took place two blocks from the property, constituted a violation of any of the covenants and whether Gabriel was, in fact, living in the property. The court found, as a fact, that Gabriel was residing in the property, and, on that basis, found three violations of the lease: Gabriel’s criminal activity and possession of marijuana off the premises, forbidden by the 1996 amendment and attributable to Ms. Brown, and Gabriel’s residing in the property.

Because the criminal activity and drug possession occurred off the premises, was a singular rather than repeated occurrence, and did not affect any of the residents or immediate neighbors, the court did not find those violations to be substantial. Noting that Gabriel’s residing in the property might constitute fraud, in that Ms. Brown’s rent was calculated on the assumption that he was not residing in the property, the court found that violation to constitute a substantial breach of the lease. The court construed § 8-402.1 as requiring, for a judgment of restitution of the premises, not just the finding of a substantial breach, but also that the breach warrants an eviction. In that regard, it weighed the fact that Ms. Brown ⁵⁷⁵ had occupied the property without incident for 17 years, that the criminal conduct was Gabriel’s, that Gabriel, being in jail, was no longer in the property, and that he could be specifically banned from returning by HOC, and determined that, “when you weigh the scales of justice on this,” it was not appropriate for Ms. Brown to be evicted.

Upon that conclusion, the court entered judgment for Ms. Brown, denying the relief requested by HOC. HOC appealed that judgment to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, urging that it was incumbent upon the District Court, upon finding a substantial breach, to order restitution of the premises. Its view was, and remains, that a substantial breach necessarily warrants an order of restitution and that, by directing that the court “shall give judgment for the restitution of the premises” (emphasis added), the Legislature did not intend to allow discretion to do otherwise. In that regard, HOC viewed a substantial breach under § 8-402.1 in the same manner as a failure to pay rent under § 8-401.

The circuit court agreed with HOC’s interpretation, construing § 8-402.1 as creating a two-pronged, not a three-pronged test. Under its interpretation, if the court finds a breach of the lease and finds that that breach was substantial, it must order restitution of possession. In effect, the court held that a substantial breach warrants restitution as a matter of law and thus requires that such relief be provided. In an order entered December 23, 1997, the court modified the District Court judgment by awarding possession of the property.

We granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Circuit Court. Md.Code, §§ 12-305 and 12-307 of the Cts. & Jud. Proc. Article.

DISCUSSION The issue is purely one of statutory construction, and thus our goal is to discern and effectuate the intent of the legislature at the time it enacted the statute. Clark v. State, 348 Md. 722, 726 , 705 A.2d 1164, 1166 (1998). We start, and usually end, in that endeavor with the statutory language ⁵⁷⁶ itself, giving the words of the statute their ordinary and common meaning. In doing so, we attempt, if reasonably possible; to give effect to all of the words and phrases used by the legislature, “so that no word, clause, sentence or phrase is rendered surplusage, superfluous, meaningless, or nugatory.” Management Personnel Serv. v. Sandefur, 300 Md. 332, 341 , 478 A.2d 310, 315 (1984).

That principle alone demonstrates the fallacy in HOC’s and the Circuit Court’s construction. As noted, the relevant part of § 8-402.1(b) states that, “[i]f the court determines that the tenant breached the terms of the lease and that the breach was substantial and warrants an eviction, it shall give judgment....” (Emphasis added.) To read the statute as urged by HOC, and as the Circuit Court read it, would make the phrase “and warrants an eviction” not only superfluous, but actually antithetical to the legislative intent they necessarily presume. If the Legislature really meant to require an eviction upon the finding of a substantial breach and to leave no discretion in the court, there would have been no need to add that last phrase, which serves only to detract from that intent or, at the very least, make it ambiguous. A more rational interpretation, in better keeping with the rule of construction enunciated above, is that, by including the additional language, the General Assembly intended for it to have positive meaning, and the only positive meaning it could have is to vest discretion in the court to decline a judgment of eviction, even upon a finding of substantial violation, if, in the court’s view, the breach does not warrant an eviction.

The legislative history of § 8-402.1 supports that view. Section 8-402.1 is the most recent of a trilogy of statutes providing landlords an expedited remedy for the recovery of leased premises. Section 8-401 permits a landlord to recover possession of leased premises whenever the tenant fails to pay rent that is currently due and payable. The landlord may file a complaint in the District Court and, subject to certain conditions, have trial within five days.

If the court finds that any part of the rent is due and unpaid, it “shall determine the ⁵⁷⁷ amount of rent due and enter a judgment in favor of the landlord for possession of the premises.” Id. § 8—401(c)(2). In entering the judgment, the court shall order the tenant to yield possession to the landlord within two days and, subject to certain exceptions, if the tenant fails to comply with that order, the court is required to issue a warrant directing the appropriate official to remove the tenant from the property. Id. § 8-401 (c)(3) and (d). If the tenant has been sufficiently served, the court may also enter a money judgment for the rent due. 1 Section 8-402 deals with tenants holding over after termination of the lease.

It permits the landlord to recover both possession of the property, provided that the landlord has given written notice to quit at least one month prior to termination of the lease, as well as damages in an amount not less than the apportioned rent for the holdover period. If, upon trial or upon the tenant’s nonappearance, the court finds that the landlord had been in possession, that the lease has expired, that notice to quit had been given, and that the tenant refused to vacate, the court “shall thereupon give judgment for the restitution of the possession of said premises.... ” Id. § 8-402(b)(2). Section 8-402.1, as noted, provides a procedure for recovery of the premises when the tenant has breached a covenant of the lease, other than the covenant to pay rent that is currently due. These three statutes, like nearly all of our landlord-tenant law, derive from over 1,000 years of English property law, but were enacted at different times to deal with different situations.

As landlord-tenant relationships began to evolve from the arcane concepts and rules governing English feudal estates and tenures, new remedies and procedures had to be developed in order to determine who had the right to possess ⁵⁷⁸ land. The common law action of ejectment was created, and later expanded, to serve that function. Although initially designed to allow an ousted tenant to recover possession, it became, in time, usable by landlords as well, to recover possession from their tenants. 2 ⁵⁷⁹ The action, though available, became cumbersome, time-consuming, and subject to bullying and delaying tactics by the tenant, including the obtention of injunctions in the equity court. In 1731, Parliament recognized that “great Inconveniencies do frequently happen to Lessors and Landlords, in Cases of Re-entry for Nonpayment of Rent,” noting not only “the Expence, Charge, and Delay of recovering in Ejectment,” but that “it often happens that after such a Re-entry is made, the Lessee or his Assignee, upon one or more bills filed in a Court of Equity ... holds out the Lessor or Landlord by Injunction, from recovering the Possession.... ” By enacting 4 Geo.

II, Ch. 28, Parliament attempted to deal with those problems by (1) requiring tenants wilfully holding over after termination of the lease to pay rent in an amount equivalent to double the yearly value of the property and authorizing landlords to recover that rent through an action of debt, and (2) permitting landlords having a right under their lease of reentry upon nonpayment of rent, to proceed in ejectment without the need of a formal demand for the rent and actual or fictional reentry upon the land by merely serving or posting notice, whenever six months rent was in arrears. The tenant could abort the ejectment action directly only by paying or tendering to the landlord, or paying into court, prior to trial, all rent in arrears and costs. The issuance or continuance of an injunction against the ejectment proceeding was prohibited unless, within 40 days after the filing of an answer by the landlord in the equity action, the tenant deposited with the proper officer the full amount of rent that the landlord swore was due. That statute was incorporated into Maryland law in 1776 through Article 5 of the Maryland