Lockett v. Blue Ocean Bristol, LLC
132 A.3d 257
Md.2016Background
- Lockett, a Bristol House tenant, participated in the Bristol House Tenant Association and faced retaliation from Blue Ocean Bristol, LLC after advocacy efforts.
- The lease includes a fixed monthly rent and various charges categorized as deems rent or additional rent; the term “rent” is not defined in RP §8-208.1.
- RP §8-208.1 prohibits retaliatory actions by a landlord for protected conduct and allows damages, fees, and costs if the tenant is current on rent.
- Lockett received a non-renewal notice (May 28, 2014) while allegedly current on the fixed rent; Blue Ocean then filed a tenant holding over action (August 15, 2014).
- The circuit court held that the May 2014 non-renewal was retaliation and that Lockett was current on the fixed rent as of August 15, 2014 for relief purposes; it denied attorneys’ fees and treble damages for the second act due to unresolved rent status.
- The Court of Appeals held that: (i) ‘rent’ means the periodic sum for occupancy, excluding variable charges labeled as deemed or additional rent; (ii) the prevailing party may submit fee evidence under Rule 2-703 on de novo review; (iii) remand for further fee determinations consistent with this ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What constitutes 'rent' under RP §8-208.1(d)? | Lockett argues that charges labeled as 'rent' in the lease (gas, late fees, filing fees) should count. | Blue Ocean contends only the fixed monthly rent is 'rent' for eligibility purposes. | Rent means the periodic sum for occupancy; other charges are not rent. |
| Must the circuit court explain denial of attorneys’ fees under Rule 2-703? | Lockett argues the court should provide a basis for any fee denial. | Blue Ocean argues Rule 2-703 does not apply or requires no detailed rationale. | Yes; the court must explain its basis for denying attorney’s fees under Rule 2-703. |
| Was the issue of rent definition preserved for appellate review? | Lockett contends the circuit court considered rent definitions during trial. | Blue Ocean claims lack of preservation under Rule 8-131. | Issue properly preserved and reviewable under Rule 8-131. |
| Was Lockett disqualified from relief for the second retaliation act because she was not current on rent? | Lockett asserts that only the fixed rent mattered and that other charges were not rent. | Blue Ocean argued the disputed charges could be rent for purposes of RP §8-208.1(d). | Rent is the periodic sum; disputed charges are not controlling for second act. |
Key Cases Cited
- University Plaza Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Garcia, 279 Md. 61 (Md. 1977) (charges paid for use of premises may be rent in commercial leases but not necessarily in residential leases)
- Shum v. Gaudreau, 317 Md. 49 (Md. 1989) (context limits to residential leases; tends to prevent overbroad deferral to lease label for rent)
- Lockshin v. Semsker, 412 Md. 257 (Md. 2010) (plain meaning and statutory interpretation of undefined terms)
- Neal v. Fisher, 312 Md. 685 (Md. 1988) (remedial nature of rent-related statutes; liberal construction to effect remedies)
- Barufaldi (Ocean City Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Barufaldi), 434 Md. 381 (Md. 2013) (necessity of record-grounded reasoning for attorney’s fees decisions)