McNeal v. Habib
346 A.2d 508 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When funds are paid into the court's registry pursuant to a protective order in a possessory action, due process requires the court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the tenant's claims of housing code violations before disbursing those funds to the landlord, especially after the issue of possession has become moot.
Facts:
- Landlord Habib gave his tenant at sufferance, McNeal, a 30-day notice to quit.
- McNeal did not vacate the premises upon the expiration of the 30-day notice.
- McNeal alleged that there were housing code violations in the premises.
- Pursuant to a court's protective order, McNeal paid $105, an amount equivalent to one month's rent, into the registry of the court.
- Shortly before the scheduled trial, McNeal voluntarily surrendered possession of the premises, mooting the possessory action.
Procedural Posture:
- Habib, the landlord, filed a complaint for possession against McNeal, the tenant, in the Landlord and Tenant Branch of the Superior Court.
- On the return date, McNeal filed an answer asserting defenses of retaliatory eviction and housing code violations, and demanded a jury trial.
- Habib made an oral motion for a protective order, which the trial court granted, requiring McNeal to pay funds into the court registry.
- After McNeal surrendered possession of the premises, the trial court held a hearing on the disposition of the $105 in the registry.
- The trial court ordered the funds to be disbursed to Habib.
- McNeal, as appellant, appealed the disbursement order to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals; Habib is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court violate a tenant's due process rights by ordering funds paid into the court registry under a protective order to be disbursed to the landlord without an evidentiary hearing on the tenant's asserted housing code defenses, after the tenant has voluntarily surrendered possession of the premises?
Opinions:
Majority - Harris, Associate Judge
Yes, a trial court violates a tenant's due process rights by disbursing funds from a protective order without an evidentiary hearing on the tenant's defenses. While a court has the equitable authority to enter a protective order requiring a tenant to pay rent into the court registry during litigation without a full evidentiary hearing, the final disbursement of those funds requires a separate due process analysis. Once the underlying possessory action is moot, the dispute shifts to the proper allocation of the deposited funds. A tenant is entitled to an opportunity to present evidence of alleged housing code violations to determine whether the rent should be abated for the period of occupancy covered by the protective order. Therefore, ordering the funds released to the landlord without such a hearing is an error.
Analysis:
This decision bifurcates the protective order process, affirming the trial court's power to summarily enter such orders to protect landlords' financial interests during litigation delays, while simultaneously establishing a tenant's distinct due process right to a hearing before those funds are ultimately disbursed. It clarifies that defenses like housing code violations, which may be irrelevant to a possessory action based on a notice to quit, become highly relevant when determining the final rent amount due. This precedent prevents protective orders from becoming a mechanism for landlords to collect disputed rent without a hearing on the merits of the tenant's defenses, ensuring a final adjudication on rent liability.
