Chateau Foghorn LP v. Hosford
168 A.3d 824
Md.2017Background
- Hosford, a severely disabled tenant in Ruscombe Gardens (Section 8 project-based housing) files for eviction after a marijuana plant is found in his unit.
- Foghorn, the apartment owner, sought summary judgment claiming a breach of the Drug-Free Housing Policy addendum constitutes a material violation warranting eviction.
- Russia Gardens had issued a lease addendum conditioning eviction on breach being a ‘substantial’ violation; the lease renewal included an automatic renewal provision.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment finding possession illegal under federal law and the breach substantial; Court of Special Appeals reversed, emphasizing federal preemption concerns and judicial balancing under Maryland law.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari to decide whether RP § 8-402.1(b)(1) is preempted by federal Section 8 housing requirements and whether landlord-tenant law is traditionally state-regulated.
- The court ultimately held RP § 8-402.1(b)(1) is not preempted and that Maryland courts may review the breach with equitable considerations consistent with federal objectives.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does RP § 8-402.1(b)(1) conflict with federal Section 8 lease requirements? | Foghorn contends RP 8-402.1(b)(1) intrudes on federal discretion to evict for drug activity. | Hosford argues federal regulators preempt state review of ‘substantial’ breaches and equitable factors. | Not preempted; RP 8-402.1(b)(1) survives conflict preemption. |
| Is landlord-tenant law a traditional state domain requiring heightened presumption against preemption? | Foghorn asserts preemption should be strong given federal goals. | Hosford contends landlord-tenant law remains state-controlled; federal aims do not erase state review. | Court applies heightened presumption against preemption; not overridden by federal objectives. |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Housing & Urban Development v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (U.S. 2002) (landlord discretion under federal lease provisions; eviction decisions entrusted to authorities)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1996) (purpose of preemption analysis; congressional intent guidance)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (U.S. 2009) (agency views on preemption; weight afforded to regulatory guidance)
- Hillman v. Maretta, 133 S. Ct. 1943 (U.S. 2013) (domestic relations preemption; major damage standard discussion)
- Brown v. Housing Opportunities Comm’n, 350 Md. 515 (Md. 1995) (homestead/eviction procedures; evolution of RP 8-402.1 framework)
- Ridley v. Perry, 664 F.2d 1210 (4th Cir. 1981) (landlord-tenant interests; traditional view of state involvement)