Opinion ID: 2346585
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Landlord's Liability for Tenant's Violation of Ordinance

Text: [¶ 12] As an initial matter, we must determine whether Jenness, as the landlord of Weeks, can be held to have violated the ordinance by failing, after notice, to stop the ongoing violation by her tenant. Similar to many other jurisdictions, we have not had the opportunity to address whether landlords may be sanctioned for violations of municipal ordinances by their tenants. See Commonwealth v. DeLoach, 714 A.2d 483, 486-87 (Pa.Commw.Ct.1998). The answer lies in an exploration of statutes, ordinances, and case law. [¶ 13] The Town's authority to penalize the landowner is grounded in statute. Statutes concerning the enforcement of land use regulation, provide that [a]ny person, including, but not limited to, a landowner, ... who violates any of the laws or ordinances set forth in subsection 5 or 6 is liable for the penalties set forth in subsection 3. 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4452(2) (1996). [¶ 14] The ordinance at issue draws a distinction between an owner in residence and a landlord owner. There are two distinctions within the Boothbay zoning ordinance that demonstrate the Town's intention that landlords may be sanctioned separately for actions performed on their property by their tenants. First, the ordinance contemplates separate penalties for the tenant who violates the ordinance and the landlord who owns the property where the violation occurred. Compare BOOTHBAY ZONING & BUILDING ORDINANCE § III(G)(1) (Any person ... having control of any building ... who violates any of the provisions of this Ordinance ... shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined not more than $100 for each offense.) with id. § III(G)(3) (The Code Enforcement Officer may levy a fine of $25 against the owner ... for each day a violation exists.) (emphasis added.) [¶ 15] Second, the ordinance provides that an owner can be fined $100 a day for an affirmative violation of the ordinance, in contrast to the $25 a day fine for the owner whose tenant has caused the violation. Id. § III(G)(1), (3). This second distinction demonstrates the intention of the ordinance to hold landlords responsible for actions of their tenants regardless of whether the landlord personally participated in the violation. [¶ 16] The consensus from the few jurisdictions that have considered the issue is that a landlord can be held responsible for the tenant's violations if the landlord (1) has knowledge of the violation, DeLoach, 714 A.2d at 486-87; City of Webster Groves v. Erickson, 789 S.W.2d 824, 826-27 (Mo.Ct.App.1990); and (2) has the power to obtain the tenant's compliance or to evict the tenant after she receives knowledge of the violation. DeLoach, 714 A.2d at 486-87; People v. Scott, 26 N.Y.2d 286, 309 N.Y.S.2d 919, 258 N.E.2d 206, 209 (1970). [2] [¶ 17] Because the owner often benefits financially from the tenant's use of the land, through lease payments or other arrangements, and because the owner may retain a measure of control over the use of the land, it is reasonable to require an owner whose land is in tenancy to take action to comply with municipal ordinances once noncompliance has been brought to the owner's attention. Accordingly, we hold that a landlord can be held to have violated the ordinance and can be sanctioned for the continuing violation of an ordinance by a tenant when: (1) the ordinance authorizes separate penalties against a landlord; (2) the landlord has notice of the violation; (3) the landlord has a reasonable ability to control the use of the land; and (4) the landlord has been given a reasonable opportunity to obtain the tenant's compliance or eviction. [¶ 18] In the present case, the ordinance authorized a separate penalty for a landlord in violation of the ordinance. Jenness had sufficient control over the land through the lease and was given a reasonable opportunity to obtain Weeks's compliance or her eviction. [3] Finally, Jenness was on notice of Weeks's actions that were in violation of the ordinance. The CEO's letter explained why Weeks was acting in violation of the ordinance and how Jenness could be found to have violated the ordinance if she did not act to cure the violation. At the time of the trial in the District Court, Jenness did not contest evidence that she had notice of Weeks's violation, had received a reasonable opportunity to cure the violation, had the ability to control Weeks's use of the land through the lease provisions, and had taken no steps to obtain Weeks's compliance or eviction. The only arguments presented to the court were that the CEO was interpreting the ordinance incorrectly (by isolating the barroom) and that landlords cannot, under any circumstances, be sanctioned for violations by their tenants. The court properly concluded that the ordinance's penalty provisions were applicable to Jenness as the landlord of a tenant acting in violation of the ordinance.