Landlord Awarded Possession of Residential Property Without Rental Suitability Certificate
A recent memorandum opinion issued by Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Nina W. Padilla in Frempong v. Richardson may significantly change the way residential landlord-tenant disputes are handled for properties located in the city of Philadelphia.
November 14, 2018 at 12:09 PM
7 minute read
A recent memorandum opinion issued by Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Nina W. Padilla in Frempong v. Richardson may significantly change the way residential landlord-tenant disputes are handled for properties located in the city of Philadelphia.
In Frempong, the parties entered into a month-to-month lease for a property located in Philadelphia, the opinion said.
According to the landlord, the tenant was responsible for payment of the water bills for the property during the lease term.
According to the opinion, prior to the inception of the lease tenancy, the landlord failed to obtain a rental license for the property or provide the tenants with the certificate of rental suitability for the property or a copy of the associated “Partners for Good Housing Handbook” issued by the city of Philadelphia's Department of Licenses and Inspections.
For a period of time during the lease term, the landlord did obtain a rental license for the property, however, it was revoked by the city government because of a pending lawsuit the landlord had with the city government for unpaid water bills and real estate taxes due on account of the property, the opinion said.
Some of the unpaid water bills pre-existed the tenants, the opinion said.
Since the landlord could not obtain a rental license for the property, they could not obtain and, thus, provide the tenants with a certificate of rental suitability.
Since the tenants failed to pay rent and some of the water bills due under the residential lease, the landlord provided the tenants with a written notice of termination of the residential lease and notice of eviction, the opinion said.
When the tenants did not vacate from the property, the landlord filed a landlord-tenant complaint in the Philadelphia Municipal Court seeking possession of the property and a money judgment for the rent and other monies allegedly in arrears.
A judgment for possession only was entered in favor of the landlord and against the tenants.
The tenants then appealed that judgment for possession entered against them to the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.
In order to stay execution of the judgment for possession, the tenants deposited the rent, which would otherwise be due under the residential lease in escrow with the trial court.
A bench trial subsequently took place before Padilla, at which trial the parties presented evidence and argument.
After the bench trial took place, Padilla awarded possession of the property to landlord as approximately two months after the award, but ordered that the escrowed funds being held with the trial court should be released to the tenants.
Both the landlord and the tenants ultimately appealed Padilla's ruling to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Padilla then issued a memorandum opinion to set forth the legal reasoning behind her ruling.
Padilla pointed out that, prior to or at the time of the inception of the lease tenancy, the landlord was required to obtain a rental license as well as a certificate of rental suitability from the city of Philadelphia's Department of Licenses and Inspections, and to provide the tenants with a copy of the certificate of rental suitability and in addition to copies of the “Partners for Good Housing Handbook.”
Quoting Section 9-3202 of the Philadelphia Code, which is titled “Rental Licenses,” Padilla emphasized that “no person shall collect rent with respect to any property that is required to be licensed pursuant to this Section unless a valid rental license has been issued for the property.”
Padilla also quoted portions of Section 9-3903 of the Philadelphia Code, which is titled “Certificate of Rental Suitability; Required Tenant Documents.” In doing so, Padilla highlighted that an “owner of a property for which a rental license is required, at the inception of each tenancy, provide to the tenant a certificate of rental suitability that was issued by the department no more than 60 days prior to the inception of the tenancy” as well as “a copy of owner's attestation to the suitability of the dwelling unit … and a copy of the 'City of Philadelphia Partners for Good Housing Handbook.'”
As indicated by Padilla, under Section 9-3901(4)(e) of the Philadelphia Code, if a property owner fails to obtain a rental license or provide the tenant with a copy of the certificate of rental suitability and the associated “Partners for Good Housing Handbook,” then the property owner “shall be denied the right to recover possession of the premises or collect rent during or for the period of noncompliance.”
On appeal, the landlord asserted that they should have been able to collect rent against the tenants, despite not providing the tenants with a copy of the certificate of rental suitability for the property, along with a “Partners for Good Housing Handbook,” because the tenants prevented the landlord from obtaining the certificate of rental suitability due to their failure to pay the water bills due under the residential lease.
Padilla vehemently disagreed with the landlord's assertion, noting that many of the unpaid municipal obligations pre-existed the tenants.
Furthermore, Padilla stated that the landlord failed to obtain the certificate of rental suitability prior to inception of the residential lease, as required by the Philadelphia Code.
Padilla concluded that, because the landlord was never compliant with the Philadelphia Code during the lease term, they were not entitled to collect rent from the tenants.
Padilla then addressed the tenants' argument that she had committed an error of law and abused her discretion by awarding possession of the property to the landlord where the landlord never obtained a certificate of rental suitability, did not have a valid rental license at trial, and was not eligible to receive a rental license or certificate of rental suitability because the landlord's rental license was revoked due to their noncompliance with the Philadelphia Code.
Citing to Section 9-3901(4)(e) of the Philadelphia Code, Padilla emphasized that any property owner that does not comply with the requirements to obtain a rental license or provide the tenant with the certificate of rental suitability and the associated governmental handbook may only be denied the right to recover possession of the leased premises or to collect rent during or for the period of noncompliance.
By refusing to award rent to the landlord under the residential lease, Padilla stated that she was well within her right to award possession of the property to the landlord despite their noncompliance under the Philadelphia Code.
This is the most critical aspect of the memorandum opinion, as, until now, to my knowledge, there has not been an opinion in writing so holding that a landlord may obtain possession of a residential property in spite of the landlord's failure to provide the tenant with the requisite certificate of rental suitability and the associated governmental handbook.
As an aside, Padilla briefly addressed her decision to grant the landlord possession of the property approximately two months after she issued her ruling.
According to Padilla, she was well within her authority to set a reasonable time for termination of the stay of the supersedeas that had been in effect.
|Lessons Learned
In Fremong, Padilla clarified that a landlord in Philadelphia may still obtain possession of the residential property from the tenant even when the landlord fails to obtain a rental license or provide the tenant with a certificate of rental suitability and the associated governmental handbook.
How the Superior Court ultimately decides this issue may dramatically change the landscape of landlord-tenant disputes proceeding forward. In other words, stay tuned.
Alan Nochumson is the sole shareholder of Nochumson P.C., where his law firm's primary practice areas consist of real estate, litigation, land use and zoning, business formation and general counseling and appellate advocacy. He is also president of Bear Abstract Services, where his title insurance company offers comprehensive title insurance, title examination and closing services. He can be reached at 215-399-1346 or [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCannabis Took a Hit on Red Wednesday, but Hope Is On the Way
De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250