Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland; November 7, 1995; Maryland; State Supreme Court
The court reaffirms that in appeals regarding possession of leased premises from the District Court of Maryland, the amount in controversy is based on the fair market rent for the duration of possession in dispute. In this case, Tyzanna Cottman entered yearly leases with Princess Anne Villas, a federally subsidized housing project, and faced eviction for late rent payments. Princess Anne notified Cottman of non-renewal and set the fair market rent at $575 monthly. Cottman held over, leading Princess Anne to file for possession due to breach of lease, but the District Court ruled in her favor.
Princess Anne appealed but failed to request a transcript, prompting Cottman to move to strike the appeal for not transmitting the record within sixty days, arguing her property interest in the tenancy exceeded $2,500. The circuit court denied her motion, defining the amount in controversy as $167, the rent she paid. After the circuit court ruled against Cottman and ordered restitution, she sought certiorari from a higher court.
The higher court indicated that civil appeals from the District Court necessitate a record when the amount in controversy exceeds $2,500. The responsibility to order a transcript rested with Princess Anne, and the circuit court should have dismissed the appeal for lack of record transmission. The court cited relevant case law asserting that the value of a tenant’s right to possession is crucial in determining the amount in controversy. Cottman, being a tenant in federally subsidized housing, had a continuous right to possession, and eviction could only occur for material noncompliance with the lease, not merely due to lease expiration. The court rejected the calculation method used by the circuit court, emphasizing that fair market rent for comparable housing must be considered in determining the value of possession to the tenant.
The tenant, Mrs. Carroll, holds an indefinite right to remain in her townhouse under a month-to-month lease, as eviction requires the Commission to establish good cause. The potential future federal rent subsidies are significant in valuing her right to possession. The circuit court was instructed to begin its valuation with the fair market rent for the unit and assess whether the fair market rent over Mrs. Carroll's remaining lifespan or a number of years exceeded $2,500. The aggregate rent was $355 monthly ($4,260 annually), while the fair market rent was set at $575 monthly ($7,900 annually). Even considering just a one-year lease renewal, Mrs. Carroll's right to possession surpassed $2,500. Consequently, the circuit court’s decision was reversed, and the case was remanded with directions to dismiss Princess Anne Villas’ appeal, with costs to be borne by them. The court did not address the merits of Princess Anne’s claim that late rent payments constituted material noncompliance, as the review focused on procedural issues. The aggregate rent was acknowledged as indicative of fair market rent.
