Temple v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 536 A.2d 1024 (1987)

Citation: Temple v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 536 A.2d 1024 (1987)
Parent Document: Temple v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 536 A.2d 1024 (1987)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 1987-12-01
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5128946/temple-v-district-of-columbia-r... ↗

Full Text

1,152 chars

The agency, however, did not rely on these numerous grounds in rejecting Temple’s claim of exemption. It never addressed the applicability of the 1975 Act as originally enacted nor did it review the evidence to determine whether, on the merits, Temple was still not exempt. Furthermore, in only one of its decisions did it allude to Temple’s failure to file a Claim of Exemption Statement: “Landlord filed no claim of exemption nor took any steps to perfect his entitlement. Even assuming that the agency was not enforcing this provision of the Act, the landlord’s appeal must still fail [because an owner-occupied unit is counted in determining aggregate number].” RHC Decision of August 4, 1984 (emphasis added). Given the ambiguity of such a statement, Temple’s failure to file a Claim of Exemption Statement can hardly be characterized as a ground of the agency’s decision not to grant him an exemption. Indeed, it is clear to this court that the agency’s decision was based solely on its erroneous determination that an owner-occupied unit is to be counted in determining the aggregate number of units for purposes of the small landlord exemption.

Other Sections in This Document (118)

Full Text