Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Miller v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 870 A.2d 556 (2005)

Citation
Miller v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 870 A.2d 556 (2005)
Parent Document
Miller v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 870 A.2d 556 (2005)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
2005-03-24

Other Sections in This Document (33)

Full Text

1,311 chars
The referenced § 42-3509.01(b), in turn, subjects to the imposition of a fine of up to $5,000 anyone who “willfully” commits specified acts or “(3) ... any other act in violation of any provision of this chapter,” including by inference retaliation under § 42-3505.02. In Quality Mgmt., supra, we took note of subsection (b) by comparison, stating that “[f]rom the context it is *559clear that the word ‘willfully’ as used in [§ 42-3509.01(b)] demands a more culpable mental state than the word ‘knowingly’ as used in [§ 42-3509.01(a)].” 505 A.2d at 75 n. 6. We quoted from exchanges in the legislative history suggesting that the “more culpable mental state” was an “ ‘in-ten[tion] to violate the law.’ ” Id. (citation omitted). Although the RHC’s understanding of the term “willfully” was not at issue in Quality Mgmt., the RHC — both before and after that decision — has interpreted the adverb, as used in the fíne provision, to mean that the housing provider intended to violate the Act or at least knew that it was doing so, from which the intent to do so could be inferred. See Ratner Mgmt. Co. v. Tenants of Shipley Park, TP 11,613 (RHC Nov. 4, 1988); RECAP v. Powell, TP 27,042 (RHC Dec. 19, 2002). Our discussion of the issue in Quality Mgmt., though probably dictum, confirms this meaning of the term.