Opinion ID: 2350316
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Commercial units

Text: Revithes claims that the agency erred in failing to make a finding of fact as to whether, from August 1, 1978, through August 1, 1979, the use of Unit 2 was residential or commercial. [22] The agency in fact relied on two grounds in concluding that Revithes did not qualify for the small landlord exemption on August 1, 1978, when the first increase was taken, and in concluding that the property was improperly registered on November 27, 1978. First, both the hearing examiner and the RHC referred to the Crowther decision of November 12, 1978, which rejected Revithes' claim of exemption. Since Revithes never perfected an appeal of that decision, the prior determination of non-exemption was controlling. [23] Second, the hearing examiner re-examined the factual circumstances surrounding Revithes' claim of exemption in 1978 and came to an independent determination that Unit 2 was in fact used as a residence at that time. Since four other units were used as residences, Revithes was not exempt. The RHC affirmed the hearing examiner's findings. We are persuaded that the earlier determination of non-exemption in 1978 is sufficient to bar Revithes from claiming exemption for that period. However, we deem it appropriate to review the agency's findings on the merits since the agency relied almost exclusively on the merits in its arguments before us. Furthermore, it is appropriate to lay to rest this landlord's long-standing protests of exemption. The hearing examiner explicitly found that three tenants were residing at 233 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., and at least two tenants were residing at 235 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., on the date [Revithes] filed her 1978 landlord registration statement, stating that only one tenant resided there (emphasis added). The examiner also found that despite contrary representations on the November 1978, registration statement, none of the units was owner-occupied. She saw no need to make a finding regarding whether or not a sixth tenant ever resided at the two addresses (emphasis added). The findings of the hearing examiner are more than supported by substantial evidence. D.C.Code § 1-1510(a)(3)(E) (1981); see Remin v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 471 A.2d 275, 277 (D.C.1984). It is undisputed that in 1978 three tenants resided at 233 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E. It is also undisputed that Mr. Crowther lived in Apartment 1 of 235 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E. Tenant-intervenors testified that two other tenants, a Mr. Stephen Hand and a Mr. Twynham, also resided at 235 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., at that time. Moreover, the tenants introduced two letters from Mr. Hand conclusively demonstrating that he resided in Apartment 2 at 235 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., throughout 1978 and until August 1, 1979. The hearing examiner cited those two letters and the Superior Court Crowther decision in finding that at least two tenants were residing at 235 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E. Hand's letters demonstrated the residential nature of his tenancy and Revithes' actual knowledge of it. In the first letter, dated June 25, 1979, Hand wrote: It is my intention to vacate this apartment [Unit 2] on or before July 31.... I believe that an inspection of the premises will find the apartment to be in good, indeed better, order than when I first occupied it in November of 1977. You will find that the apartment has shelving, refinished floors where there is no carpeting as well as a new mantel above the fireplace. After 18 months, the apartment does need repainting.... [Emphasis added.] On July 25, 1979, as Hand was preparing to vacate his apartment, he wrote to the property managers: Herewith [are] the keys to Apartment # 2 at 235 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.       As indicated in my letter of June 19... I believe the apartment is in better shape than when I first occupied it on November 1, 1977. On July 13, [1979], while the movers were moving my household goods out of the apartment, the owner dropped in and I discussed with her certain problems I had experienced as well as her plans for renovating the apartment. I told her that an electrician had found back in late 1977 that the overhead light wiring in the living room and bedroom were shorting out and thus the lighting fixtures were removed and the outlet boxes capped. The living room chandelier was refurbished and moved into the bathroom. ... [Emphasis added.] Revithes, however, claims that she offered evidence that Hand's lease was commercial rather than residential. This court has previously held that even if a unit is rented under a commercial lease, the unit's actual use and occupancy as a residence, and the landlord's knowledge of such use, subjects the unit to rent control. White v. Allan, 70 A.2d 252 (D.C.1949). Therefore, the fact that Hand's lease may have been labeled commercial was, at best, irrelevant, and, at worst, evidence of a willful intention to circumvent the rental housing laws. Thus, conclusive evidence demonstrated that at least five units at 233 and 235 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., were rented... for residential occupancy on August 1, 1978, when Revithes increased the rents, and on November 27, 1978, when Revithes registered the properties and claimed that 235 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., contained only one rental unit. Since the actual rental of five, non-owner occupied, residential rental units indisputably falls outside the small landlord exemption, Revithes' cry of exemption in 1978 and through August 1, 1979, rings hollow. 2.