Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Temple v. DC RENTAL HOUSING COM'N, 536 A.2d 1024 (1987)

Citation
Temple v. DC RENTAL HOUSING COM'N, 536 A.2d 1024 (1987)
Parent Document
Temple v. DC RENTAL HOUSING COM'N, 536 A.2d 1024 (1987)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1987-12-01

Other Sections in This Document (126)

Full Text

1,315 chars
First of all, it seems to this court that more was at issue than the rent ceiling computation of the Lobsenz' units. The issues seemed to be whether the rent ceiling of the Kirkendall unit could be increased from the $200 base rent determination and whether the rent ceilings of the other units could be established, and then increased, by authorized means. Indeed, in response to the statement by counsel for Temple that "Temple is ... barred from taking rent increases otherwise authorized by law," the RACD suggested neither the filing of certificates of implementation for automatic increases nor the amending of the registration form for vacancy increases. The RACD response to Temple's inquiry generates the unmistakable inference that any efforts by Temple to adjust the rent ceilings pending the Kirkendall appeal would be unsuccessful. Furthermore, there is some evidence that the RACD discouraged Temple from filing a hardship petition. While the evidence before us is limited — the record seems incomplete in this respect — it seems clear that perhaps starting as early as December 1983, Temple made efforts to lawfully have the agency establish the rent ceilings of the Lobsenz' units and to adjust those ceilings, but was met with unfavorable agency reaction due to the pendency of the Underdue appeal.