226 A.3d 15
Md.2020Background
- Tenant Latashia Pettiford rented a Baltimore City unit from Next Generation; landlord sued in District Court (Nov. 2018) for unpaid rent (June–Oct 2018).
- Pettiford moved to dismiss, arguing Next Generation lacked a Baltimore City use-and-occupancy permit after a violation notice; District Court denied the motion and limited argument on habitability/escrow defenses.
- During the bench proceeding, after Pettiford acknowledged nonpayment for certain months, the District Court announced and entered a money-and-possession judgment on a form marked "consent." Pettiford did not expressly agree to a settlement on the record.
- Pettiford appealed to the circuit court (which affirmed); she then obtained certiorari to the Maryland Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals (March 26, 2020) (1) held McDaniel did not require a use-and-occupancy permit pre–Jan. 1, 2019; (2) held the District Court’s judgment was not a consent judgment (so no waiver for appeal); and (3) held the court improperly precluded Pettiford from litigating implied-warranty-of-habitability and rent-escrow defenses; case remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Pettiford's Argument | Next Generation's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McDaniel requires a landlord to have a Baltimore City use-and-occupancy permit before filing summary ejectment (filed Nov. 2018) | McDaniel should extend to Baltimore City use-and-occupancy permits; lack of permit defeats summary ejectment filing | McDaniel does not apply to Baltimore City occupancy permits as they were not part of the pre-2019 registration scheme | McDaniel did not extend to Baltimore City use-and-occupancy permits at the time of filing (Nov. 2018); but under the new 2019 Baltimore rental licensing scheme a landlord must plead and prove a valid rental license to invoke summary ejectment. |
| Whether the District Court’s judgment was a "consent judgment" and whether Pettiford waived appellate review by not objecting in District Court | There was no party agreement, no consideration, and no affirmative consent; the court manufactured a consent label; appeal preserved | The form was marked "consent," Pettiford acknowledged owing rent, and she failed to object to entry of a consent judgment | Judgment was not a consent judgment: no agreement presented, no consideration, and no valid consent by Pettiford or counsel; appealable without an in-court objection. |
| Whether the District Court properly barred Pettiford from asserting implied warranty of habitability and rent-escrow defenses in the summary ejectment | Tenant may raise implied-warranty and rent-escrow claims as defenses in summary ejectment and should be allowed to present evidence (lack of heat for ~9 months) | Landlord argued defect was not established and that heat issue did not affect months at issue; court sought to avoid immediate safety risk to tenant | Court erred in cutting off defenses: both rent-escrow (RP §8-211 / PLL §9-9) and Baltimore City implied-warranty claims (PLL §9-14.1/.2) may be asserted and must be considered in summary ejectment; remand for factual consideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDaniel v. Baranowski, 419 Md. 560 (2011) (local licensure that protects habitability is a prerequisite to use summary ejectment in jurisdictions that require it)
- Cane v. EZ Rentals, 450 Md. 597 (2016) (tenant may assert rent-escrow defenses in summary ejectment; rent-escrow statute is remedial)
- Long v. State, 371 Md. 72 (2002) (consent judgments reflect parties’ bargain and should track agreed terms)
- Chernick v. Chernick, 327 Md. 470 (1992) (consent judgments have contractual attributes and require consideration)
- Neal v. Fisher, 312 Md. 685 (1988) (rent-escrow statute is remedial and should be construed to effectuate its remedial purpose)
- Dorsey v. Wroten, 35 Md. App. 359 (1977) (trial court abused discretion by entering a consent decree when record showed no consent)