Solberg v. Majerle Management

WILNER, J. This is a breach-of-lease action in which the District Court, and on appeal the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, ruled for the landlord. The action ultimately was grounded on what the landlord argued was, and the Circuit Court found to be, an unjustified refusal by the tenants to permit inspections of the leased premises. The tenants, who are disabled, contended that the landlord was required by both the Federal Fair Housing Act ( 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.) and the lease to make reasonable accommodations in light of their disabilities and that her agent failed to do so. Although there was a clear procedural glitch at the Circuit Court level, the relevant issue before us is essentially a factual one — whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Circuit Court’s conclusion that the landlord did, indeed, attempt to make reasonable accommodations and that the tenants’ refusal to permit scheduled inspections by the landlord’s agent constituted a breach of the lease.

We shall affirm. BACKGROUND In September, 1999, Deborah Sossen and Erick Solberg, petitioners here, entered into a 24-month lease for a single-family dwelling at 10017 Brookmoor Drive, in Silver Spring, Maryland. The lease was evidenced by a Dwelling House ²⁸⁵ Lease and a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 Lease Addendum. For our purposes, two provisions of the lease are particularly relevant.

Section 13 required the tenants to allow the landlord or her agent to enter the premises for the purpose of inspection at any reasonable time. Section 27, which by its terms prevailed over any conflicting provisions in the lease, recited that the landlord had received “official medical testimony regarding tenants’ requirement for special adaptations to accommodate to their handicapping conditions” and understood that they were on the Department of Agriculture’s pesticide sensitive list. Based on that documentation, the landlord agreed to allow “reasonable accommodations and modifications for Tenants’ disabilities.” In that regard, the landlord agreed to create “the least chemical impact/load to Tenants’ health,” and that “tpjersons entering unit for repairs will adhere to disability guidelines as per medical advice and Tenant instructions unless for emergency repairs to prevent damage to property.” (Emphasis added). Section 27 precluded the landlord from terminating the lease except for certain causes, including “[sjerious or repeated violations of the terms and conditions of the lease.” The landlord was an individual who lived in Colorado, and, until June, 2001, she relied on her sister to manage the property.

It is not clear whether any inspections of the property took place pursuant to § 13 during that period of time. In June, 2001, the landlord entered into a property management agreement with Majerle Management, Inc., in which she appointed Majerle as her agent to manage the property. The agreement required Majerle to make inspections of the property as it felt necessary, “but approximately twice annually,” and to “report matters concerning the condition of the Premises to said Owner.” On June 22, 2001, Mr. Majerle informed the tenants in writing that his company had been employed as the landlord’s agent. In that letter, he advised: “I will personally manage your home and will conduct routine matters including periodic inspections.

The first ²⁸⁶ inspection is scheduled for July 11 between 3:15 and 4:15 PM. These inspections are conducted semi-annually, during normal business hours and you must be present. If this date or time is not acceptable, you may call to reschedule. Otherwise, your failure to be home will be treated as a broken appointment subject to a $125.00 charge.” On July 10 — the day before the scheduled inspection-Mr. Solberg left a voice-mail message with Majerle and sent a confirming fax message cancelling the inspection. 1 His excuse was that their neighbors had been applying weed control to their homes and, due to Ms. Sossen’s extremely ill nature, he and Ms. Sossen had to leave the area.

Solberg noted that the Montgomery County Housing Opportunities Commission (HOC) also needed to conduct an annual inspection for its own purposes and that the Commission had been asked to reschedule “for a much later date due to her condition and the need to keep the house closed up and keep from tra[c]king in pesticide residue and other incitents.” Solberg acknowledged “your need to inspect for the first time to know what you are managing” and promised “to work diligently to provide this to you at the first available time.” The inspection was rescheduled and took place without incident in August, 2001. Majerle said that, although there were no major problems, he noticed open electrical boxes in the ceilings, a hole in the ceiling in an upstairs bedroom, a lot of clutter both inside and outside the house, and the “[ejxteri- or not being taken proper care of.” The County HOC also inspected the house in August and found a number of problems that Majerle resolved. In December, 2001, Solberg sent to Majerle several documents pertaining to his and Ms. Sossen’s disability, among which was a “To Whom It May Concern” letter from Ms. Sossen’s physician, Dr. Grace Ziem. Dr. Ziem advised that Ms. Sossen had a “severe medical condition ²⁸⁷ involving seizures and other severe consequences of exposure to even trace levels of irritants, pollutants and petrochemicals.” As a result, she said: “It is medically necessary that no individual coming to her home have fabric softener residue on their clothing, be wearing clothing that has been recently drycleaned or any other commercial cleaning process, not having pumped gas prior to coming, not wearing recently polished shoes, not having used or come into close contact that day with household or commercial cleaning agents including but not limited to ammonia or Clorox, not having a recent permanent (within about one week) or other beauty salon treatments within about two days.

The individual should not have any scented product of any type on hair, body, or clothing. The individual should be a nonsmoker (or if a smoker, should come before smoking a cigarette that day and after shampooing, bathing, and washing clothes in baking soda and special products which the patient can describe). It is medically recommended that the person come as their first work activity of the day, to avoid contamination and severe consequences, coming directly from home, if possible. It is important that the individual not be in the home when the patient is not present because contaminants linger in the home in sufficient concentration to cause medical complications when she returns to her home.” 2 On March 20, 2002, Majerle informed the tenants that he had scheduled an inspection for April 1, 2002, between 1:30 and 2:30 p.m. and asked that, if they were unable to be home at that time, to call his office to reschedule.

On March 29, Solberg faxed a letter to Majerle, stating that he had been out of town from February 5 to March 25 and had just learned of the date for the inspection. The point of his letter was that it was necessary to reschedule because “[w]e need to find out ²⁸⁸ exactly when the neighbors plan lawn treatment and with what chemical prior to setting an appointment.” He said that he would let Majerle know as soon as possible. Neither Solberg nor Sossen ever followed up with a new date. On June 14, 2002, Majerle sent the tenants a notice to vacate the premises by July 31, 2002, assigning as reasons (1) unsatisfactory exterior conditions — -mulch spread on lawn, repeated instances of vehicle parked on lawn; (2) repeated cancellations of management inspections; and (3) frequent complaints from neighbors.

With respect to neighbor complaints, the letter stated that the tenants had “no right to chase after their pesticide applicators or to tell them what they can an[d] cannot do within their own property lines. You have allegedly told them that they may apply chemicals, but that they must notify you first.” Solberg claimed that, because his mail was “on hold” since April 30, he did not receive the letter until the end of July. Solberg said that he called Majerle upon seeing the letter and offered to allow an inspection within the next “two to three weeks.” Majerle rejected the offer and said that he could not continue to do business that way. When the tenants failed to vacate the premises, Majerle filed a tenant holding over action in the District Court.

That action, we are informed, was dismissed by Majerle when it was discovered that he had failed to provide sufficient notice to HOC, as required by the HUD addendum to the lease. In November, 2002, the landlord, through counsel, advised the tenants that the lease had expired September 10, 2001, and directed that they vacate the property by December 31. A copy of that notice was sent to HOC. When the tenants failed to vacate, another tenant holding over action was filed in District Court.

That, too, proved unsuccessful. In a decision rendered March 5, 2003, the court interpreted the wording of the lease and the addendum as providing for a continuing tenancy, notwithstanding a stated term, unless and until it was terminated by the landlord, the tenant, or agreement between the two, and that the landlord ²⁸⁹ could terminate only for specified causes. The court concluded that, although Majerle had acted reasonably and was not required to wash his clothes in baking soda, none of the listed causes for termination had been sufficiently proved. Accordingly, it held that the lease had not terminated and the tenants were not, therefore, holding over.

The problem, the court said, was with the terms of the lease, not the actions of Majerle. On May 6, 2003, Majerle informed the tenants that an inspection would occur on May 22, between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. On May 20, as he had done on each previous occasion, Solberg cancelled the inspection. He asserted that three neighbors had hired a lawn company to apply herbicides or pesticides to their lawns, that he and Ms. Sossen were ill, and that it was medically necessary to reschedule the inspection “for a later date when we are able.” He added that, due to their disability, “a mandatory rescheduled [appointment] will not be possible,” but advised that he and Ms. Sossen were looking to find another place to live.

Faced with yet another rejection, the landlord, on May 23, sent another notice to vacate, by June 30, 2003. In addition to the denial of inspection, the notice also mentioned frequent complaints from neighbors about both the condition of the house and “incessant and outrageous disturbances you have caused in this community.” When, as before, the tenants ignored the notice to vacate, the landlord filed an action for both tenant holding over and breach of lease. At trial, held in November, 2003, the parties reached an agreement that apparently was read into the record, later reduced to writing and signed by Majerle, but never signed by the tenants. It called for Majerle to inspect the property before February 29, 2004 and allowed the tenants to remain in possession until May, 2005. 3 In conformance ²⁹⁰ with that agreement, Majerle, on December 1, 2003, notified the tenants that an inspection would occur on December 17, 2003, between 3:30 and 4:30 p.m.

On December 3, 2003, HOC, after denying the tenants’ request for postponement, conducted its inspection of the house. On December 11, an attorney for the tenants cancelled the December 17 inspection, claiming that Ms. Sossen was “apparently still recovering from the fragrances dragged into the residence by the [HOC] inspector.” 4 The attorney said that Mr. Solberg would contact Majerle “to schedule the inspection for a date prior to the end of February.” Majerle acceded to the request, even beyond the February 28 date. In a letter dated March 4, 2004, Solberg advised that the doctor was requesting that the inspection be delayed until the end of March. He attached a letter from Dr. Ziem dated-February 18, 2004, addressed to “Dear Neighbors,” that described in general Ms. Sossen’s allergy and her susceptibility to life-threatening complications from exposure to pesticides and herbicides.

Perhaps because the letter was meant for neighbors and not Mr. Majerle, it did not repeat any of the other “Don’ts” included in her 2001 letter, but mentioned only ²⁹¹ the problem of pesticides and herbicides. Solberg also forwarded a copy of the HOC inspection report. In a telephone conversation, Majerle apparently told Solberg, based on the court’s comments at the March, 2003 hearing, that he did not intend to be bound by all of the fabric softener and other restrictions, but intended to wash his clothes as he usually did. No further inspection ever occurred.

On March 19, 2004, Majerle filed a motion in the 2003 District Court case seeking judgment of possession. The motion referred to the November hearing and to the agreement that the landlord would be permitted to inspect the property by February 28, 2004. It averred that, although the landlord’s attorney signed the stipulation, it was never signed or returned by the tenants and that the tenants had twice refused to permit an inspection. The motion pointed out that the HOC Inspection Report sent by Solberg described several problems that required immediate attention — electrical hazards, mildew spots, cracked window pane, large hole in ceiling, mold in pantry — and urged that the tenants’ refusal to permit an inspection for the purpose of making necessary repairs constituted a breach of the settlement agreement.

The tenants filed an opposition to the motion, in which they acknowledged that the inspection anticipated by the November agreement did not occur but contended that that was due to Majerle’s refusal to reasonably accommodate the tenants’ disabilities. On April 14, 2004, the court granted the landlord’s motion and entered a judgment of possession. The tenants noted an appeal to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County and proceeded as if the appeal were de novo. They did not order a transcript of the District Court proceedings, and, until the landlord ordered a transcript of the March 2003 proceedings in preparation for trial in the Circuit Court, all that the District Court transmitted were the original papers.

The Circuit Court treated the appeal as a de novo one, and, through counsel, the parties confirmed that when they appeared for trial on July 29, 2004. Two witnesses testified for the landlord and both sides introduced exhibits. The tenants did not appear on the first day of trial, although ²⁹² their attorney participated. Solberg appeared and testified on the second day of trial, which took place on August 4, 2004.

After listening to all of the testimony and considering the various exhibits, the Court concluded that the problem had become a test of wills between Majerle and the tenants and that the landlord “has provided reasonable accommodations with an effort to allow for rescheduling but each time that has happened, a roadblock has been thrown up by the tenant.” The Court acknowledged that