Skip Navigation

9881 Broken Land Parkway
Suite 100
Columbia, MD 21046

P. 410-290-0707

__________

111 South Calvert Street

Suite 2700

Baltimore, MD 21202

P. 410-962-1199

__________

Damages recoverable in summary ejectment

Summary Ejectment: Court of Appeals Limits Recoveries for Landlords

In the event of non-payment of rent or other material default, landlords are entitled to summary proceedings to obtain possession of the property.  In addition, a request can be made for a monetary judgment for outstanding rent as of the date of the hearing, provided appropriate service of process has been made.  When seeking money judgments in such proceedings, landlords routinely request attorneys' fees and other costs cast as "additional rent" when seeking possession of premises in the event of default.

On June 29, 2006, Maryland's Court of Special Appeals in Law Offices of Taiwo Agbaje, P.C. v. JLH Properties, II, LLC,  issued an opinion holding that a landlord could not recover attorneys fees as additional rent in a summary ejectment action.  

The Court relied on the decision of the Court of Appeals in Shum v. Gaudreau, 317 Md. 49 (1989), noting that "generally, contract damages could not be sought in an...ejectment proceeding." Opinion at p. 15.  In summary ejectment "'rent' is not defined by statute, but is generally defined as "payment for the tenant's use, possession and enjoyment of land."  Opinion at p. 13 citing Shum at p. 65.   Applying this principle, the Court noted that attorneys' fees, while recoverable under a contract theory, were not recoverable in summary ejectment. Contract damages would be "such a complex factual inquiry" as to "frustrate the expedited design of the summary ejectment statue."  Opinion at p. 16.

Contrarily, the Court did hold that the tenant was within its rights to raise and litigate an abatement of rent argument contractually provided for in the lease.    "[W]here a lease provides for an abatement of rent, the tenant may assert the abatement provision in an ejectment proceeding instituted".  Opinion at p. 25.  The Court rationalized that the refusal to allow such a defense would create unnecessary litigation. 

  

  


BTLG Attorneys At Law

Talk to a lawyer

Bold labels are required.

News from BTLG:

Employment agreements: for-cause termination provisions versus at-will employement
A for-cause termination provision can turn, what the parties intended to be at-will employment, in to perpetual employment subject only to termination for-cause.
Oral Contracts-How Enforceable Are They?
A contract, whether written or oral, is only enforceable if the essential terms of the contract are clear and certain. The contract must be sufficiently definite and detailed as to what actions all parties are obligated to perform.
The Value of a 409a Valuation
Companies that offer stock options as an employee incentive need to be familiar with section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code
Valid Arbitration Provisions in Employment Contracts
When two parties enter into an arbitration agreement and one fails or refuses to arbitrate a dispute, the aggrieved party may seek an order from the court directing the parties to proceed with arbitration as set forth in their agreement.
More BTLG News