Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Parreco v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 885 A.2d 327 (2005)

Citation
Parreco v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 885 A.2d 327 (2005)
Parent Document
Parreco v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 885 A.2d 327 (2005)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
2005-12-06

Other Sections in This Document (99)

Full Text

1,377 chars
In his opening statement, the landlord sought dismissal of the discrimination claim for lack of jurisdiction. Next, the landlord moved to dismiss any challenge to the rent increase on the basis that it was semiannual, because the law permits rent increases within 180 days of each other. The landlord then moved to dismiss the remainder of the tenant’s petition on grounds that the settlement agreement to stay the eviction that had been ordered by Superior Court required the tenant to pay all rent increases. The examiner took the motion under advisement, but did not rule on it, and ultimately reached the merits of the petition. On direct examination by his attorney, the landlord stated that he understood that he had the right to increase the tenant’s rent on a semi-annual basis, “within certain conditions of the law.” He testified that he had brought a number of eviction proceedings against the tenant because he had been chronically late in paying rent and at times did not pay rent at all. On cross-examination by the tenant, the landlord explained that he increased the tenant’s rent to offset the costs incurred in having to take legal action so often against the tenant to collect rent. The apartment building’s engineer also testified that the heat had been off only once, when the boiler unexpectedly broke down, but that it was fixed within five to six hours.