Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)

Citation: Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
Parent Document: Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2013-07-25
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5146856/pajic-v-foote-properties-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,307 chars

EASTERLY, Associate Judge:
With this opinion, we restate what is already the law in the District of Columbia: Landlords may not include a provision in a lease that requires a tenant to pay *143court costs or legal fees. Pursuant to District of Columbia municipal regulation, any such provision is void from the outset and unenforceable. Accordingly, the landlord in this case, Foote Properties, acted illegally when it included a fee-shifting provision in Mr. Pajic’s lease, and it was error for the trial court to rely on this provision to award Foote Properties almost $45,000 in attorneys’ fees in an action to collect unpaid rent from Mr. Pajie. We also conclude that the trial court erred both in granting summary judgment to Foote Properties and in dismissing Mr. Pajic’s counterclaim for breach of contract. Resolution of this case by summary judgment was inappropriate in light of the disputes of material fact regarding whether Mr. Pajie made rent payments to Foote Properties and whether the parties agreed to reduce or waive rent payments due to problems with the apartment’s plumbing and air conditioning. Moreover, Mr. Pajie, who was proceeding in the trial court pro se, sufficiently made out a counterclaim for a breach of the implied warranty of habitability. We reverse and remand. I. Facts

Other Sections in This Document (33)

Full Text