Assanah-Carroll v. Law Offices of Maher
281 A.3d 72
Md.2022Background
- Tenant Alison Assanah-Carroll rented in a Baltimore building that was unlicensed from Aug. 15, 2019 to July 14, 2020; she paid rent during the unlicensed period, stopped when she learned of the lapse, then resumed after relicensing.
- She filed a putative class action under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) and Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA) seeking restitution of rent paid during the unlicensed period and claiming unlawful collection efforts for unpaid rent. Defendants included the owner (Roizman entities) and the law firm that pursued collections.
- Federal district court certified two questions to the Maryland Court of Appeals: (1) whether a tenant who voluntarily paid rent to an unlicensed Baltimore landlord may recover restitution under the MCPA or MCDCA without proving actual injury; and (2) whether a currently licensed landlord may lawfully collect unpaid rent (or pursue ejectment) for amounts attributable to a period when the landlord was unlicensed, where the tenant alleges no separate damages.
- Baltimore City Code § 5-4(a)(2) (added by Bill 18-0185) prohibits charging, accepting, retaining, or seeking to collect rent for rental occupancy unless the person was licensed both when offering and when providing occupancy.
- The Court analyzed the interplay between the City ordinance, the MCPA/MCDCA statutory remedies (distinguishing public restitution/disgorgement from private damages), and common-law principles concerning enforcement of contracts contingent on required licenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Can a tenant who voluntarily paid rent to an unlicensed Baltimore landlord recover restitution under MCPA or MCDCA without proving actual injury? | Assanah-Carroll: §5-4(a)(2) creates/authorizes recovery of rent paid for unlicensed occupancy via private MCPA/MCDCA action; no separate injury required. | Roizman: Existing MCPA private remedy requires proof of actual injury; City cannot expand state statutory remedies by local ordinance. | No. Private MCPA (and MCDCA) claims require proof of actual injury or loss; §5-4(a)(2) did not create a private restitution remedy and City lacks authority to alter MCPA remedies. |
| 2) May a landlord (now licensed) collect unpaid rent or pursue ejectment for rent attributable to a period when landlord was unlicensed? | Assanah-Carroll: collection/enforcement for unlicensed-period rent is unlawful under §5-4(a)(2); such collection may violate MCDCA/MCPA. | Roizman: landlord may recover unpaid rent and use summary ejectment or contract remedies once licensed. | No. Under common-law principles (Restatement §181 line), a landlord may not use courts—statutory or common-law actions—to recover unpaid rent attributable to an unlicensed period; exception if tenant’s wrongful acts caused the license loss. Tenant may have MCDCA/MCPA claims for unlawful collection activity that caused damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Golt v. Phillips, 308 Md. 1 (1986) (renting an unlicensed, uninhabitable dwelling violated MCPA and tenant may recover actual compensatory damages)
- Consumer Protection v. Consumer Publishing Co., 304 Md. 731 (1985) (distinguishes civil damages from restitution/disgorgement; government enforcement may secure restitution without individual reliance)
- CitaraManis v. Hallowell, 328 Md. 142 (1992) (private MCPA action requires proof of actual injury; lack of licensure alone is insufficient for restitution in private suit)
- Galola v. Snyder, 328 Md. 182 (1992) (same MCPA limitation; voluntary rent payment without proof of injury not automatically recoverable)
- McDaniel v. Baranowski, 419 Md. 560 (2011) (applied common-law licensing principles to bar unlicensed landlord from initiating summary ejectment; plaintiff must plead licensure to invoke streamlined statutory process)
- Linton v. Consumer Protection Division, 467 Md. 502 (2020) (explains MCPA enforcement categories and reconfirms distinction between private damages and public restitution)
- Harry Berenter, Inc. v. Berman, 258 Md. 290 (1970) (contractor unlicensed under regulatory statute cannot enforce contract; public-protection licensing defeats recovery)
- Snodgrass v. Immler, 232 Md. 416 (1963) (unlicensed professional not permitted to recover fees where licensure serves public protection)
- Goldsmith v. Manufacturers’ Liability Ins. Co., 132 Md. 283 (1918) (where statute requires license for public protection, courts will refuse to enforce contracts by unlicensed parties)