Robinson v. Diamond Housing Corporation
463 F.2d 853 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord may not evict a tenant in retaliation for the tenant successfully asserting a legal right to withhold rent due to substantial housing code violations. A landlord's stated intent to remove the property from the rental market is not, by itself, a sufficient defense against a claim of retaliatory eviction.
Facts:
- On May 2, 1968, Lena Robinson signed a month-to-month lease and moved into a row house owned by Diamond Housing Corp.
- At the inception of the lease, the premises suffered from substantial housing code violations, including missing plaster, an unsafe porch, a detached wall, and a missing window pane.
- Diamond Housing failed to make promised repairs to the deteriorating condition of the house.
- As a result of the landlord's failure to repair the unsafe and unsanitary conditions, Robinson began withholding her rent payments.
- After Robinson successfully used the housing code violations as a defense in court, Diamond Housing served her with a 30-day notice to quit.
- Diamond Housing stated that it was unwilling to make the necessary repairs and intended to take the housing unit off the rental market.
Procedural Posture:
- Diamond Housing Corp. first sued Lena Robinson for possession in the D.C. Court of General Sessions (trial court) for nonpayment of rent.
- A jury returned a verdict for Robinson, finding substantial housing code violations existed at the start of the lease, and the trial court entered judgment for her.
- Diamond Housing filed a second suit for possession, arguing Robinson was a trespasser; the trial court dismissed this action as res judicata.
- Diamond Housing appealed the dismissal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court), which affirmed, holding Robinson was a tenant at sufferance who could be evicted with a 30-day notice.
- Diamond Housing filed a third suit for possession in the Court of General Sessions based on a 30-day notice to quit.
- The Court of General Sessions granted summary judgment for Diamond Housing, rejecting Robinson's retaliatory eviction defense.
- Robinson, as appellant, appealed to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which affirmed the summary judgment in favor of appellee Diamond Housing.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (highest court for this matter) granted Robinson leave to appeal.
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 landlord's notice to quit, served on a tenant after the tenant successfully defended a prior eviction action for nonpayment of rent by proving substantial housing code violations, constitute an impermissible retaliatory eviction even when the landlord states an intention to withdraw the property from the rental market?
Opinions:
Majority - J. Skelly Wright
Yes. A landlord cannot evict a tenant in retaliation for the tenant's lawful exercise of their right to withhold rent due to uninhabitable conditions. Permitting such evictions would undermine and chill the exercise of tenants' rights as established by law and public policy. The court extended the retaliatory eviction defense from Edwards v. Habib, which protected tenants who reported code violations, to also protect tenants who assert code violations as a defense in court. The court reasoned that if landlords could circumvent a tenant's right to withhold rent by simply serving a notice to quit, the right itself would become meaningless. A landlord’s mere assertion that they intend to remove a unit from the market is not a sufficient defense; they must prove a legitimate, non-retaliatory business justification for the eviction. A tenant's assertion of rights creates a presumption of retaliatory motive, which the landlord then bears the burden of rebutting with evidence of a legitimate purpose, such as a financial inability to make repairs.
Dissenting - Robb
No. The landlord's action was a proper exercise of their right to terminate a tenancy by sufferance. The majority's decision inappropriately treats landlords like public utilities and commits the management of their private property to the discretion of a jury. The landlord provided an uncontradicted affidavit stating an intention to remove the property from the rental market, which should have been sufficient to grant summary judgment. There is no legal warrant for presuming an 'illicit' motive and forcing a landlord to prove a 'substantial business reason' for their decision. The majority's 'Draconian treatment of landlords' will inevitably discourage investment in rental housing and worsen the housing crisis.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the retaliatory eviction defense, preventing landlords from using a no-fault notice to quit as a loophole to punish tenants who legally withhold rent for uninhabitable conditions. It establishes a powerful, tenant-protective, burden-shifting framework that presumes an eviction is retaliatory if it follows the tenant's assertion of their rights. This ruling forces landlords to provide a legitimate, verifiable business reason for such an eviction, rather than simply stating a desire to remove the property from the market. The case solidifies the principle that tenants' rights to a habitable dwelling cannot be easily circumvented, thereby strengthening the enforcement mechanisms of housing codes.
Unlock the full brief for Robinson v. Diamond Housing Corporation