Velicky v. The CopyCat Building LLC
476 Md. 435
| Md. | 2021Background
- Copycat Building LLC (owner) lost a Baltimore City rental license after a transfer of ownership; it continued to operate multiunit residential housing without a current license.
- Tenants Anna Velicky and Christopher Walke occupied units as month-to-month (Velicky had an earlier written lease that expired; Walke’s internal move produced a statutory presumption of a one-year term).
- Copycat served 60‑day notices to quit; when tenants did not vacate, Copycat filed tenant–holding‑over suits under Md. Code, Real Property § 8‑402 in District Court seeking possession.
- District Courts initially ruled for the tenants in both cases; on de novo appeals the Baltimore City Circuit Court awarded possession to Copycat.
- Tenants petitioned for certiorari. The Court of Appeals reviewed (a) whether an unlicensed landlord may use RP § 8‑402 to regain possession after a tenancy expires, and (b) whether an appeal in Velicky should have been tried on the District Court record or de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an unlicensed landlord may use RP § 8‑402 (tenant holding over) to recover possession after a lease ends | Tenants: apply McDaniel and related public‑policy precedents to bar unlicensed landlords from using statutory remedies to repossess (to deter unlicensed renting). | Copycat: RP § 8‑402 is possessory (not contractual or monetary); McDaniel (summary ejectment) is distinguishable; foreclosure would leave owners no statutory remedy and unduly impair property rights. | Court declined to judicially foreclose RP § 8‑402 for unlicensed landlords; legislative scheme balances interests and courts will not add a judicial bar. |
| Whether McDaniel controls holding‑over proceedings | Tenants: McDaniel’s public‑policy rule (no judicial assistance to unlicensed claimants) should extend to RP § 8‑402. | Copycat: McDaniel addressed summary ejectment (contract + money) and is inapplicable; holding‑over is different. | Court distinguished McDaniel: summary ejectment enforces contractual rent claims and is procedurally swift; holding‑over is possessory after lease expiry and may involve different protections. |
| Whether an appeal from District Court in Velicky should be on the record or de novo (CJ § 12‑401(f)) | Velicky: value of the possessory interest must be considered; 60 days’ rental value exceeded statutory threshold so appeal should have been on the record. | Copycat: no money judgment sought; de novo appropriate. | Court held the value of the right to possession counts toward amount in controversy; because two months’ rent exceeded $5,000, the circuit court erred in conducting a de novo trial and remanded for an on‑the‑record appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDaniel v. Baranowski, 419 Md. 560 (2011) (unlicensed landlord may not invoke summary ejectment to enforce rent obligations where local licensing serves protective/regulatory purpose)
- Brown v. Housing Opportunities Comm’n of Montgomery Cty., 350 Md. 570 (1998) (history and statutory ‘‘trilogy’’ of landlord‑tenant repossession remedies, including RP § 8‑402)
- Purvis v. Forrest Street Apartments, 286 Md. 398 (1979) (value of possessory right counts toward amount in controversy for on‑the‑record vs de novo appeal analysis)
- Harry Berenter, Inc. v. Berman, 258 Md. 290 (1970) (public‑policy refusal to enforce contracts or remedies for unlicensed contractors)
- Snodgrass v. Immler, 232 Md. 416 (1963) (unlicensed professional barred from enforcing contractual claims where licensure protects the public)
- Golt v. Phillips, 308 Md. 1 (1986) (tenant may pursue MCPA damages for renting an unlicensed, uninhabitable dwelling when actual injury is proved)