Opinion ID: 2167433
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Landlord's Challenge to the Stay Pending Appeal

Text: The landlord argues that the trial court erred in granting the tenant a stay pending appeal because he failed to meet the criteria for that relief. [19] Specifically, he contends that the tenant failed to show that he would be irreparably harmed if the stay were not granted, that the landlord would not suffer harm or that the public interest would be served by granting the stay. To prevail on a motion for stay, a movant must show that he or she is likely to succeed on the merits, that irreparable injury will result if the stay is denied, that opposing parties will not be harmed by a stay, and that the public interest favors the granting of a stay. Barry v. Washington Post Co., 529 A.2d 319, 320-21 (D.C.1987) (citing In re Antioch Univ., 418 A.2d 105, 109 (D.C.1980)) (other citation omitted). Applying that standard, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling granting the stay pending appeal. The most important inquiry in the injunction analysis concerns irreparable injury. Antioch, supra, 418 A.2d at 109. The parties do not dispute that the tenant would suffer irreparable harm if evicted. Other courts have so determined. See, e.g., Higbee v. Starr, 698 F.2d 945, 947 (8th Cir.1983) (depriving tenant of place to live constituted irreparable harm); Vargas v. Municipal Court for Riverside Judicial Dist., 22 Cal.3d 902, 150 Cal.Rptr. 918, 587 P.2d 714, 722 n. 7 (1978) (noting that eviction inevitably results in irreparable harm); Housing Works, Inc. v. City of New York, 255 A.D.2d 209, 680 N.Y.S.2d 487, 491 (N.Y.App.Div.1998) (noting that potential of eviction for non-payment of rent presented irreparable harm). However, the landlord argues that the tenant has provided no proof that he could not pay the rent increase and that he would be homeless. We disagree. Here, the tenant's failure to tender the full amount of the rent charged placed him in breach of an agreement, subject only to his pending challenge to the legality of the rent. Absent a stay, he could have been evicted under the terms of an agreement that provided that he had no right to redeem the tenancy, even if he could afford to pay the charges subsequently. The upheaval of the tenant from his home, even if he can find alternative housing, creates a cognizable irreparable injury. This court has previously indicated that a party seeking temporary equitable relief need not show a mathematical probability of success on the merits. See Antioch, supra, 418 A.2d at 110 (citations omitted). Rather, the level of probability of success that must be demonstrated will vary according to the court's assessment of the other factors pertinent to the analysis. See id. (citation omitted). Thus, [a] stay may be granted with either a high probability of success and some injury, or vice versa. Cuomo v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 772 F.2d 972, 974 (D.C.Cir.1985); see also Antioch, 418 A.2d at 110-11 (suggesting that more stringent probable success on the merits standard had to be employed because movant had failed to show irreparable harm by clear and convincing evidence). Thus, if irreparable harm is clearly shown, the movant may prevail by demonstrating that he or she has a substantial case on the merits. See Antioch, supra, 418 A.2d at 110-11. On the merits, as discussed earlier in this opinion, the tenant had a clear likelihood of prevailing on his claim that he was entitled to a Drayton stay pending the final determination of his challenge to the rental increase administratively. Moreover, the tenant raised somewhat novel issues, or at least issues not previously squarely addressed by this court. These include: (1) whether under the unique circumstances of this case, a Drayton stay was required; (2) how the word rent should be interpreted in a consent judgment where it is not defined therein; and (3) whether allowing rent increases to be incorporated into a consent judgment constitutes an impermissible judicial modification of the consent judgment. These are circumstances that can be weighed in the analysis. See Doe v. Axelrod, 136 A.D.2d 410, 527 N.Y.S.2d 385, 390 (1988) (noting that although movant may not be ultimately successful, the case presented novel issues of first impression and injunction should be granted). Further, there was no showing that the landlord would be harmed here. The landlord could be protected by an appropriate order. In this case, the tenant was directed to pay the full amount of rent demanded by the landlord pending appeal. Since the landlord would be protected from loss of income, its only harm would be the delay in executing the writ of eviction. Although this is a valid interest, when the equities are balanced, the landlord's interest in timely execution pales in comparison to the tenant's potential loss of his home before his rights could be adjudiciated. Finally, the public interest is better served by preserving the tenant's right to occupy his home pending a determination of the legality of the rent charged. The landlord is correct that there is a public interest in preserving contracts as written. Indeed, this court has indicated that although there was a strong interest against forfeiture, it might be slightly outweighed by the interest in contract preservation. See Suitland Parkway Overlook Tenants Ass'n. v. Cooper, 616 A.2d 346, 349 (D.C. 1992). However, a temporary stay does not defeat the landlord's rights under the contract. Further, as the trial court recognized, other important policies are implicated here, i.e., the policies protected by Drayton of deferring to the agency with primary jurisdiction of the legality of rent challenges under our local statutes and preserving the status quo pending the agency's determination of such questions. See Mullin, supra note 10, 712 A.2d at 492-93 (citations omitted). As Judge Mize implicitly found, given the uncertainty regarding how Drayton would apply in this instance, the public interest would be better served by determination of what he called a significant legal issue. In this case, the tenant has the more compelling public interest argument. For the foregoing reasons, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision entering a stay pending appeal.