Hosford v. Chateau Foghorn LP
145 A.3d 616
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2016Background
- Tenant Wesley Hosford (disabled long-term resident) lived in Ruscombe Gardens, a Section 8 project-based, federally-subsidized apartment building.
- Exterminators found a plant in Hosford’s bathtub in 2014 that police and a chemist identified as marijuana; a related District Court criminal charge was later nol prossed.
- Landlord Chateau Foghorn invoked the lease clause barring "drug-related criminal activity" and sued under Md. Code, Real Prop. § 8-402.1 to evict.
- Foghorn moved for summary judgment, arguing (1) no material fact dispute on possession, (2) possession violated federal law and the lease, and (3) federal law preempts the § 8-402.1 requirement that a court find a breach "substantial" and that it "warrants eviction."
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Foghorn, holding federal law limited courts to assessing only whether a lease breach occurred (not whether eviction was warranted).
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding federal law does not preempt a state court’s discretion under § 8-402.1 to weigh equitable factors before ordering eviction; remanded for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hosford) | Defendant's Argument (Foghorn) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal law preempts RP § 8-402.1(b)(1)’s requirement that a court find a breach "substantial" and that it "warrants eviction" before ordering possession | § 8-402.1 allows courts to consider equitable factors; federal law does not preclude that role | Federal Section 8 statute/regulations and HUD guidance vest landlords with discretion to evict for drug-related activity and preempt state rules that let courts override landlord discretion | Not preempted: courts may consider equitable factors; preemption requires "major damage" to clear federal interests and is not shown here |
| Whether record contained a genuine dispute of material fact about possession of marijuana | Argued there was a factual dispute (and medical-use context) | Pointed to exterminators’ affidavits and police chemist report as undisputed proof of possession | No genuine dispute: record establishes possession of marijuana on inspection date |
| Whether possession of a small amount of marijuana for medical purposes is "drug-related criminal activity" under the lease | Medical-use statute provides an affirmative defense under Maryland law; Hosford presented medical evidence supporting therapeutic use | Federal CSA classifies marijuana as illegal (Schedule I), so medical-use defense is irrelevant to federal-grounded eviction authority | Court: Maryland’s decriminalization/affirmative defense affects criminal conviction but federal law still outlaws marijuana; but that does not resolve preemption—the state court may still weigh equitable factors |
| Standard for reconciling federal interest in drug‑free subsidized housing with state eviction discretion | Courts should be allowed to rebut presumption that drug-related activity ordinarily warrants eviction by considering equitable factors (e.g., disability, medical use, hardship) | Federal interest requires landlords be able to remove drug‑related tenants; state defenses should not frustrate that federal goal | Adopted middle ground: presume drug-related activity ordinarily warrants eviction, but allow rebuttal by equitable factors under § 8-402.1; landlord discretion to pursue eviction remains respected |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Housing & Urban Dev. v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (2002) (federal statute entrusts eviction discretion to local housing authorities to protect public housing from drug-related crime)
- Brown v. Housing Opportunities Comm’n of Montgomery County, 350 Md. 570 (1998) (§ 8-402.1’s "substantial" and "warrants eviction" language authorizes courts to weigh equitable factors before forfeiture)
- Grady Management, Inc. v. Epps, 218 Md. App. 712 (2014) (state "warrants eviction" standard applies to federally-subsidized leases and does not impose a more stringent showing than federal law requires)
- Scarborough v. Winn Residential L.L.P./Atlantic Terrace Apts., 890 A.2d 249 (D.C. 2006) (right-to-cure statutes can conflict with federal objectives by impeding landlord discretion)
- Milwaukee City Hous. Auth. v. Cobb, 361 Wis.2d 359 (2015) (state cure/right-to-cure provisions may frustrate federal goal of keeping subsidized housing drug-free)
- Boston Hous. Auth. v. Garcia, 449 Mass. 727 (2007) (innocent-tenant defenses can be preempted where they conflict with federal housing policy)
- Housing Authority of Covington v. Turner, 295 S.W.3d 123 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009) (opportunity-to-cure statute did not necessarily conflict with federal objectives)
- Eastern Carolina Regional Hous. Auth. v. Lofton, 767 S.E.2d 63 (N.C. App. 2014) (state unconscionability/equity standard did not stand as obstacle to federal policy)