Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Bernstein Management Corp. v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 952 A.2d 190 (2008)

Citation
Bernstein Management Corp. v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 952 A.2d 190 (2008)
Parent Document
Bernstein Management Corp. v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 952 A.2d 190 (2008)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
2008-07-10

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text

1,198 chars
. Petitioner argues that its public filings of what it believed were permissible increases in the rent ceiling indicate that it wás not acting in bad faith. Although the record does not contain any filing made by petitioner with the RACD other than the one with respect to the 1996 rent ceiling adjustment, it appears that the tenant may have relied on such public filings in compiling the chart (tenant’s Exhibit 1) that is incorporated in the Commission's order. But the fact that petitioner may have misrepresented the rent ceiling to RACD as well as to the tenant is no guarantee of the petitioner’s bona fides. The case on which petitioner relied in its motion for reconsideration is inapposite, for as the Commission there stated, "the housing provider offered testimonial and documentary evidence to il-*199lústrate the fact that it implemented one authorized and previously unimplemented vacancy rent ceiling adjustment.” Lincoln Prop. Mgmt. v. Chibambo, TP 24, 861 (RHC November 29, 2000). Here, on the other hand, the Rent Administrator did not believe petitioner’s assertion and there was no documentary evidence that such an authorized but unimplemented rent ceiling adjustment existed.