Opinion ID: 2350495
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Constructive Registration

Text: The RHC found that Temple registered his property on July 25, 1983. On that date, Temple spoke to Michael Scott, the Chief of Client Services of the RACD, and showed him the minutes of the July 6, 1983 BZA meeting during which Temple's request for a variance had been granted. Scott issued Temple a registration number which was temporary until such time as Temple both obtained a final Certificate of Occupancy and a housing business license and paid the required fees for registration. Temple argues, however, that he should be deemed constructively registered on January 12, 1983, the date he first spoke to an employee of the RACD and was informed that he would be unable to register until he secured a Certificate of Occupancy for a five-unit apartment house. He claims that since government error prevented him from obtaining the Certificate sooner, his attempt to register should be deemed effective that day. To the extent this argument overlaps with Temple's claim of estoppel, we reject it for all the reasons stated above. In this case, the application of principles of equity back to the time of January 1983 would require a good deal less evidence of Temple's intention to circumvent rent control than appears on this record. See Udall v. Littell, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 89, 96, 366 F.2d 668, 675 (1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1007, 87 S.Ct. 713, 17 L.Ed.2d 545 (1967) ([i]t is elementary, of course, that one seeking equity must do equity and must show `clean hands' at the threshold). Moreover, the agency applied equitable principles in deeming Temple registered as of July 25, 1983. At that time, Temple had no Certificate of Occupancy, no housing business license, and had paid no registration fee. In fact, a Certificate of Occupancy was not issued to Temple until December 28, 1983, and a housing business license was not issued until December 1, 1983. The agency's decision to deem Temple registered as of July 25, 1983, comported with the sensitivity it exhibits toward delays in the actual issuance of licenses and permits. See Binder, supra. The agency, however, is not and should not be required to constructively register a housing accommodation when the agency has no proof of the legality of the use of the property. [11] See D.C.Code § 45-1516(d)(1)-(2) (1981) (requiring registration forms to contain certificates of occupancy and dates and numbers of housing business licenses).