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

1,350 chars

The trial judge also dismissed Mr. Pajic’s counterclaim on the grounds that the counterclaim failed to “set[ ] forth money damages suffered by [Mr. Pajic] as a result of any such breach.” But again we find no deficiency in Mr. Pajic’s pleading. “[A] tenant may use breach of the implied warranty of habitability as the basis for an affirmative action for damages in this jurisdiction.” George Washington Univ. v. Weintraub, 458 A.2d 43, 47 (D.C. 1983). Those damages may be used “to contest the obligation to pay rent” or to seek an abatement for rent already paid. See id. at 46 (obligation to pay); Hsu v. Thomas, 387 A.2d 588, 589 (D.C.1978) (refund for rent already paid). In addition, a claimant need only prove “ ‘some reasonable basis on which to estimate damages,’ ” not exact damages themselves. Cowan v. Youssef, 687 A.2d 594, 599 (D.C.1996) (quoting Romer v. District of Columbia, 449 A.2d 1097, 1100 (D.C.1982)). In his verified answer and counterclaim, Mr. Pa-jic not only sufficiently alleged a breach of the implied warranty of habitability, but he also alleged that he paid a number of months in full — several of which were eventually uncontested by Foote Properties — and that he was allowed a reduction in rent because of Foote Properties’ alleged breach for two other months. Mr. Pajic adequately plead his damages. IV. Conclusion

Other Sections in This Document (33)

Full Text