Tenants ask court if unlicensed landlords, property managers are committing fraud

A group of West Baltimore tenants seeking to hold their landlords and property manager accountable for failing to have a rental license will be able to take their case to trial next year after a judge sided with their unique legal argument.

In an August ruling, Baltimore City Circuit Judge Kendra Y. Ausby allowed the case to proceed on four of five counts. One of them is a fraud and deceit claim — a somewhat rare allegation in landlord-tenant disputes due to the high bar required to prove it, legal experts who specialize in the practice area said.

The tenants’ case might result in more punitive damages if successful, attorneys said. It could also help ensure more compliance with Baltimore’s rental licensing law, which has proved difficult to enforce. In Baltimore, property owners and managers must have licenses to charge and collect rent, but as many as 40% of homes that should have one don’t, according to figures from the city’s Department of Housing and Community Development.

Tenants at the two West Baltimore properties, in a section of the Midtown neighborhood bordered by Bolton Hill, Penn North and Reservoir Hill, have accused their landlords and property manager of conspiring against current and prospective tenants by charging and accepting rent, renewing leases and entering into new lease agreements knowing they lacked a license.

“They worked together to violate and ignore the law,” said Kyle Coleman, an attorney from Maryland Legal Aid, a nonprofit law firm headquartered in Baltimore, who is handling the tenants’ case. “Everyone wants accountability.”

The tenants, many of them living with disabilities and one of them a U.S. Marine Corps veteran who gets around by wheelchair, each allege that their home conditions are unsafe and unsanitary. With their attorneys, the tenants have argued in legal filings that the landlords and property manager have violated the Maryland Consumer Protection Act and the Maryland Consumer Debt Act and have collected money in an unjust fashion.

Meanwhile, they said, the conditions in which they live have only worsened. One warm afternoon in September, the group of plaintiffs gathered outside their buildings and spoke of a series of hazards they‘ve experienced in their homes, including rodents and vermin, mold, unsecured windows and dirty water.

“The mice ask me for the remote,” said Johnetta Johnson, a tenant at one of the properties who has been living there for more than a decade. “It’s like jail, basically.”

“I wouldn’t do a dog or cat like that,” added Margaret Little, her neighbor.

The landlords, Reginald and Marguerite Daniels Housing for Elderly Inc. (also known as Walker Daniels) and Bellevieu-Manchester Limited Partnership, have owned their respective buildings since the early 1990s, according to online property records. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development helps subsidize the rents at Walker Daniels, which holds 23 one-bedroom apartments meant for older adults. Bellevieu-Manchester, a Low Income Housing Tax Credit property with 48 one-bedroom units, also leases exclusively to older adults. The two properties share a management company, Towner Management Company Inc.

A representative for the property manager declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation. In a Monday email, Keith H. Thompson, who identified himself as a representative for the building owners, called the fraud allegations inaccurate and emphasized that tenants failed to pay rent when the buildings were licensed.

In a statement, an HUD spokesperson said the federal agency is aware of the matter and working with the Walker Daniels staff to address any deficiencies.

In the motion to dismiss the case, Towner, the property manager, argued that the tenants may be inventing their complaints since inspectors went on to approve licensing the properties. The company also alleged that it didn’t deceive the residents because the properties were licensed when the tenants moved in.

City licenses are valid for two years and must be approved for issuance by a state-licensed, Baltimore City registered home inspector. There is no fixed rate for inspectors: Each can charge their own fee.

Judge Ausby, in her motion to deny the dismissal, wrote that collecting rent without a license still constitutes a violation of the law.

That means the court is reasserting exactly what the law commands, said Michele Gilman, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law. The judge’s response delegitimizes the “loopholes” that property owners and managers sometimes use to avoid accountability, Gilman added.

“This decision sends an important message ... that if you are not licensed, you may not collect rent for that period of time,” Gilman said.

In the complaint filed last year by the tenants, the group alleged that their housing situation inflicted an array of stressors on their lives, including panic attacks, loss of appetite, medical expenses and fear of going home. Attorneys said the buildings lacked the required emergency fire safety features and emergency exits, and that management personnel were not regularly on site to address complaints. The city’s housing department has levied several citations against both buildings, including some as recently as this past spring, according to an online database.

The attorneys also allege that the property manager and landlords were aware of the few other properties available that could house low-income tenants due to widespread affordability and housing supply challenges.

“Their residents ... have been held captive to Defendants’ dangerous business and unlawful collection practices,” Coleman and co-counsel Theda Saffo said in the complaint, “and continue to be to this day.”

It likely won’t be easy for attorneys to convince a jury that the landlords and property manager acted with “callous indifference,” said Jane Santoni, a consumer protection attorney and partner at the Santoni, Vocci & Ortega legal firm in Lutherville-Timonium.

The tenants’ team will have to prove that the building staff was more than just inept, said Santoni, who has no connection to the case. Many tenants’ rights cases boil down to just that.

“My experience has been: It’s more basic incompetence ... than outright fraud,” Santoni said. “We don’t usually include it [fraud and deceit] in typical conditions lawsuits, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there.”

But having licenses means more than just checking off a box, she added: It ensures that safety, health and livability standards are met.

“When you have a driver’s license,” Santoni said, “it means you know how to drive.”

With their lawsuit, the tenants are seeking monetary damages as well as attorneys’ fees and court costs. A trial date has been set for March.