Lexplug logoLexplug

Kirk v. Hilltop Apartments, LP

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
225 Md.App. 34, 123 A.3d 554 (2015)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In a landlord-tenant dispute involving a project-based, federally subsidized housing lease that automatically renews for successive terms absent good cause for termination, the 'amount in controversy' for determining the right to a jury trial is calculated by multiplying the property's annual fair market rent by the tenant's remaining life expectancy, not by the time remaining on the current lease term.


Facts:

  • LaShaun Kirk leased a two-bedroom apartment in a federally subsidized, project-based Section 8 housing development owned by Hilltop Apartments, LP.
  • The parties executed a standard 'Model Lease For Subsidized Programs' issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
  • The lease provided for an initial one-year term, after which the agreement would 'continue for successive terms of one year each' unless the landlord terminated it for 'good cause' in accordance with HUD regulations.
  • In March 2013, Hilltop sent Kirk a letter notifying her that it was terminating her lease, effective April 12, 2013.
  • The termination letter alleged several material lease breaches by Kirk, including allowing a fire to damage the apartment, failing to reimburse Hilltop for the damage, permitting guests to engage in criminal activity, and disturbing neighbors.
  • Kirk did not vacate the apartment by the date specified in the termination notice.

Procedural Posture:

  • Hilltop Apartments, LP filed a breach-of-lease action against LaShaun Kirk in the District Court of Maryland for Prince George’s County, seeking repossession of the apartment.
  • Kirk demanded a jury trial, asserting that the amount in controversy exceeded the $15,000 threshold.
  • The case was subsequently transferred to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.
  • In the circuit court, Hilltop filed a motion to strike Kirk’s jury demand.
  • The circuit court granted Hilltop's motion, struck the jury demand, and remanded the case to the District Court for trial.
  • Kirk, as appellant, noted an appeal of the circuit court's ruling to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

In a landlord-tenant dispute involving a federally subsidized, project-based lease that automatically renews for successive terms absent good cause for termination, is the 'amount in controversy' for purposes of a jury trial demand calculated based on the remainder of the current lease term, or based on the tenant's right to indefinite possession for their life expectancy?


Opinions:

Majority - Krauser, C.J.

No. The amount in controversy is not calculated based on the remainder of the current lease term; rather, it is calculated based on the tenant's right to indefinite possession, measured by their life expectancy. The court reasoned that Kirk's HUD model lease, used for project-based subsidized housing, explicitly provided for automatic renewal for successive one-year terms unless terminated for good cause. This provision grants the tenant a right to continued possession for an indefinite period. The court followed its precedents in Carroll v. Housing Opportunities Commission and Cottman v. Princess Anne Villas, which established that the value of this indefinite right should be calculated over the tenant's remaining lifespan. The court distinguished the case of Carter v. Maryland Management Co., relied upon by the lower court and Hilltop, because Carter involved a tenant-based voucher program where subsequent federal regulations had removed the automatic renewal requirement. In contrast, Kirk's project-based program and specific lease retained the automatic renewal clause, making her right to possession indefinite and thus justifying the life-expectancy valuation method.



Analysis:

This decision reaffirms and clarifies the method for calculating the amount in controversy for jury trial demands in eviction cases involving specific types of federally subsidized housing. It establishes a critical distinction between project-based housing programs with leases containing automatic renewal clauses and tenant-based voucher programs where such clauses may be absent. By limiting the precedent of Carter to its specific facts, the court preserves the tenant-protective valuation method from Carroll and Cottman for a significant category of subsidized housing tenants. This ruling reinforces tenants' procedural rights, making it more difficult for landlords in project-based housing to avoid jury trials by arguing for a low valuation of the tenancy.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Kirk v. Hilltop Apartments, LP (2015)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"