Opinion ID: 2350495
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Excuse from the Registration Requirement

Text: The Rental Housing Act of 1980 was in effect when the tenant petitions were filed in this action. [6] D.C. Law 3-131, 28 D.C. Reg. 326 (1981) (codified at D.C.Code §§ 45-1501 to -1597 (1981)). Every rental housing act since 1975, including the 1980 Act, has required nonexempt landlords to register their housing accommodations with the RACD in order to implement rent increases. D.C.Code § 45-1519(a)(1)(B) (1981) (1980 Act). [7] Furthermore, every rental housing act since 1975 has required that the registration forms be accompanied by the Certificate of Occupancy applicable to the building. Id. § 45-1516 (d)(1)-(2). [8] Pursuant to such a mandate, the RHC rejects and invalidates registration forms which are not accompanied by valid Certificates of Occupancy unless the failure to obtain the Certificate of Occupancy is attributable to the government's failure to act or to the government's delay in issuing the license. 1447 Chapin Street Tenants Association v. Meridian Management, T/P No. 10,107 at 2 (RHC November 30, 1983) ([t]he Commission differentiates between cases where a license is not issued because of housing code violations as distinguished from instances where the city failed to issue such documents in a timely fashion); see Binder v. Heiligh, T/P No. 11,427 at 2 (RHC February 7, 1985) ([w]here a landlord has taken reasonable steps to secure necessary licenses, to register the property and is in fact in compliance with housing code regulations, the landlord should not be penalized for delays caused by or attributable to the government); Dismer Auxier Co. v. Brown, T/P No. 10,090 (RHC October 24, 1983). Temple does not dispute the agency's finding that he never registered, or even attempted to register until 1983. He argues, however, that his failure to comply with the registration requirement is excused because the negligence of the District of Columbia Department of Licenses and Inspections prevented him from securing the requisite Certificate of Occupancy. Only a review of the voluminous record in this case gives one an appreciation of the degree to which Temple unabashedly blames the District of Columbia for his current predicament. Individually and through representatives, in letters, motions, memoranda, briefs, and testimony, Temple asserts that his serious violations of the zoning and rental housing laws of the District were occasioned entirely by the District's loss of Kemper Simpson's 1951 Certificate of Occupancy which demonstrated Temple's historic right to use his building as a non-conforming five-unit apartment house. Unfortunately for Temple, the factual predicates of his cries of innocence do not withstand scrutiny. First, the 1951 Certificate of Occupance no where indicates that the building contained five rental units. It merely authorizes the rental of all units in the building. Second, Temple himself abandoned whatever possible historic right he had to operate his building as an apartment house which did not conform to R-4 zoning requirements when, in 1968, he applied for and received a Certificate of Occupancy for a two-family flat. 20 DCRR § 7104.3 (1973) (Zoning Regulations) (effective May 12, 1958) ([w]hen an existing nonconforming use has been changed to a conforming or more restrictive use, it shall not be changed back to a nonconforming use or less restrictive use) (emphasis in original). Furthermore, to the extent there is any truth in Temple's assertion that he applied for a two-family Certificate of Occupancy in 1968 only because the District informed him that the 1964 Certificate of Occupancy issued to Simpson circumscribed Temple's right, Temple's own unlawful failure to secure a Certificate of Occupancy for over five years after his purchase of the building resulted in the issuance of the 1964 Certificate of Occupancy in the first place. [9] In any case, even if the 1951 Certificate of Occupancy bolsters Temple's claim of a right to use the building as a five-unit apartment house, the 1951 Certificate of Occupancy was never lost by the District of Columbia. Indeed, it formed an integral part of the record of the 1970 BZA proceedings when the BZA heard and rejected Temple's request for a variance from the two-family flat occupancy Temple had applied for just two years earlier. Moreover, the results of the 1970 variance proceedings can in no way be characterized as a mistake or omission on the part of the District. A full and fair hearing was conducted on Temple's contested application. After the denial of the application for the rental of five units, Temple filed a request for reconsideration. Subsequent to yet another hearing, the BZA again denied the variance. Temple never appealed that result. During the ensuing thirteen years, Temple operated his building as a five-unit apartment house despite a Certificate of Occupancy authorizing only a two-family flat. [10] Moreover, even if there were merit to Temple's meritless argument that government error prevented him from obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for a five-unit apartment house, Temple was still obligated to present himself for registration with the RACD when rent control first became effective. As the RHC held: This landlord did not attempt to register. The agency then distinguished Temple's predicament from the cases in which government delay or failure to act results in a landlord's inability to secure a valid Certificate of Occupancy. See Binder, supra. Because we find no government error in Temple's failure to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for a five-unit apartment house prior to 1983, and because, even if we did, Temple's failure to appear at the RACD for over eight years after the start of rent control would still be unjustified, his argument that the RHC is estopped from imposing damages on him for failure to register is utterly meritless.