For Landlords in Rent Court, Tough Cases Have Silver Linings

By: Anonymous Watcher

Plenty of landlords feel that the legal system is stacked against them. There are too many rights for renters, they say. And these days, there are attorneys and navigators walking the halls of the Rent Court, making it harder, we’re told, to get justice (i.e. money). In this piece, we examine a recent morning at Baltimore City Rent Court when several landlords faced scrutiny at the bench. They might not have expected or enjoyed it, but we find that even when they’re on the hot seat, landlords can’t seem to lose.

On May 28, 2019, Judge Michael Studdard began the rent court docket with a sober reminder to all in attendance: the “Failure to Pay Rent” court complaint serves a crucial function. It is all a tenant gets to see before trial about the case against them.

And noting the “strong probability that this court will dismiss” inaccurate or incomplete complaints, the judge appeared primed to hold landlords to the facts and claims stated in their pleading. Around one hour into the docket, the opportunity came.

Case #1

In an uncontested case, Judge Studdard could not decipher how the landlord’s claims could add up beyond $9,000. When the landlord explained that a court clerk had advised her to include charges for a security deposit and future months’ rent, the judge took umbrage (1:21):

Ma’am, there is so much wrong with this form, I can’t even comprehend who told you what and why – but I really don’t care. I don’t tell people to be landlords but if you decide to be a landlord, then you need to understand what you can do and what you can’t do. And if you require the clerks’ office to inform you, you know what you get? The amount which you paid for – which was nothing.

Nonetheless, the muddled complaint did not stop Judge Studdard from entering a judgment in favor of the landlord. Setting aside the likelihood that the tenant probably had little to no way to understand the claims as written in the complaint, here we find a landlord who had attempted to do “what you can’t do” in a rent case, seeking possession based on non-rent charges and rents that had not yet come do. But the consequences were far from punitive. In contrast to Judge Studdard’s introductory warnings, this case was not dismissed so that the landlord could re-file a clearer, more accurate complaint. Instead, the judge amended the alleged amount owed and granted the desired relief – possession.

Case #2

In an ensuing, contested case, Judge Studdard heard the testimony of the landlord on the amount sought and turned to the tenant. She disputed the case, stating that she “absolutely did not” owe the amount of rent alleged by the landlord and further that she owed no rent at all. Judge Studdard then asked to see the landlord’s “ledger,” that is, the statement of accounting for the tenancy. Maryland law requires all landlords to “maintain a records system showing the dates and amounts of rent paid to the landlord by the tenant.” Here, the landlord testified that she did not have one.

Judge: Do you have your ledger?

Landlord: Oh, no, I don’t have a ledger.

Judge: So what evidence are you going to produce that shows [the tenant] owes that money?

Landlord: I’ve never used a ledger.

At this juncture, the judge had rightfully put the landlord on the spot to carry her burden of proof. But the landlord could not do it. The proof did not exist. And while this should have led to a ruling in the tenant’s favor or a dismissal of the action, the judge elected – without prompting by either party – to continue the case for a week. This granted the landlord a second chance to prove an apparently unprovable case with “whatever evidence you wish.”

Case #3

Later in the docket, another contested case arose that required proof of accounting. In this matter, proceedings had already been continued from a prior date so that the tenant could bring copies of receipts and the landlord a copy of the ledger. Now the landlord had come with the ledger in hand and testified that rent was still due and owing. Disputing the claim, the tenant offered his proof of payments for the months at issue. Judge Studdard compared the payments to the landlord’s ledger. After reviewing the documents for over six minutes, he noted that the ledger omitted certain payments made by the tenant. “Landlord,” Judge Studdard asked, “you have the burden, what is the court supposed to make of this?” The landlord described how they applied certain payments to water charges, leaving the tenant short on rent, but the judge found the accounting unreliable.

The court can’t determine how much rent is due and owing. Because that ledger isn’t a ledger. A ledger is a running balance of what is owed, why it is owed, what is paid, what has not been paid. What you handed up is not a running balance. That was, ‘I need something for court, let me put something together.’ I don’t understand – let me be clear. The payment was made for $800 and for $400 in February, and there’s no indication as to those payments on your ledger.”

Over roughly 12 minutes, Judge Studdard had heard a contested case, had studied the evidence presented, and had essentially found that the landlord failed to carry the burden of proof. His ruling? Case dismissed.

While this outcome surely did not sit well with the landlord, they left the courtroom not truly the loser. There was no judgment for the tenant. No full adjudication of the claims. With insufficient evidence to prove the failure to pay rent, unable to convince the fact-finder after two chances, the landlord came away with the chance to try again, if they so pleased.

In these three cases, Judge Studdard put landlords on the hot seat, but they didn’t come away empty-handed. In the first case, the court found the landlord’s complaint nearly incomprehensible but still entered judgment in the landlord’s favor. In the second, when the court asked the landlord to show proof, which the landlord herself then acknowledged did not exist, the case was merely continued to the next week. And, in the third, the court examined the landlord’s proof, found it unreliable, and dismissed the action without prejudice, thereby ensuring that the tenant won nothing by defending himself.

In a court system stacked against them, these landlords could not have backed into wins or finagled a do-over. But in reality they somehow did, and it’s how these outcomes came about that helps us see where bias lies in the eviction process. In Rent Court, it seems, the toughest thing for a landlord to achieve is to lose their case.