MAIA FALCONI-SACHS v. LPF SENATE SQUARE, LLC
142 A.3d 550
| D.C. | 2016Background
- Falconi-Sachs leased an apartment under a one‑year standard-form lease that imposed a 10% late rent fee if rent was not received by the 5th of the month (rent $2,499; late fee assessed $249.85).
- Landlord/agent (LPF Senate Square, LLC and Bozzuto) demanded the late fee in April 2012; plaintiff paid $249.85 and later sued as a putative class.
- Complaint alleged violations of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA), fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unconscionability, and restitution/unjust enrichment.
- Trial court granted a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal: CPPA claim dismissed as outside landlord‑tenant scope; fraud and negligent misrepresentation dismissed as misstatements of law; unconscionability dismissed; unjust enrichment dismissed based on the voluntary payment doctrine.
- D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of all claims except unjust enrichment, reversing as to that claim and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of CPPA | CPPA covers deceptive practices including illegal fees charged by landlords | CPPA does not extend to landlord‑tenant relations | Dismissed: CPPA does not apply to landlord‑tenant disputes (Gomez) |
| Fraud / Negligent Misrepresentation | Landlord falsely represented obligation to pay late and attorney’s fees | Statements were about legal entitlement (law), not facts; no actionable misrepresentation | Dismissed: allegations are misstatements of law, not factual misrepresentations |
| Unconscionability as independent claim | Lease term is adhesive and oppressive; late fee is substantively/procedurally unconscionable | Lease governs; unconscionability is an affirmative defense, typically defensive | Dismissed: doctrine is generally a defense, not a standalone claim for damages |
| Unjust enrichment / voluntary payment | Late fee is an unenforceable penalty (not liquidated damages); retaining fee is unjust — seeks restitution | Payment was voluntary under a claim of right; voluntary payment doctrine bars recovery | Reversed/remanded on unjust enrichment: plaintiff plausibly pleaded that late fee may be an unenforceable penalty and that voluntary‑payment is an affirmative defense that cannot be resolved on 12(b)(6) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gomez v. Independence Mgmt. of Delaware, Inc., 967 A.2d 1276 (D.C. 2009) (CPPA does not apply to landlord‑tenant relations)
- District Cablevision Ltd. P’ship v. Bassin, 828 A.2d 714 (D.C. 2003) (liquidated damages scrutinized; penalties unenforceable if disproportionate)
- Jordan Keys & Jessamy, LLP v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 870 A.2d 58 (D.C. 2005) (elements and role of unjust enrichment in D.C.)
- Eagle Maint. Servs., Inc. v. D.C. Contract Appeals Bd., 893 A.2d 569 (D.C. 2006) (discusses voluntary payment doctrine as an affirmative defense)
- Potomac Dev. Corp. v. District of Columbia, 28 A.3d 531 (D.C. 2011) (pleading standard interpretation under Iqbal/Twombly)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must raise a plausible right to relief)
- Time Warner Ent. Co. v. Whiteman, 802 N.E.2d 886 (Ind. 2004) (recognition of restitution claim for payments made under unenforceable agreement)