Opinion ID: 2350316
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: damages subsequent to january 1, 1982

Text: If on remand, Revithes does not satisfy her burden of proving an exemption prior to January 1, 1982, the agency must nevertheless impose only a single damage award for the period subsequent to January 1, 1982, for which Revithes remains non-exempt. Tenant petitions in this action were filed on March 16, 1981, and a hearing was held on June 1, 1981. In a December 23, 1981 decision rendered pursuant to that hearing, the RAO fixed Revithes' rent ceiling at $189. In reliance upon that decision, Revithes started collecting rent of $189 on January 1, 1982. Due to numerous errors, the original decision was vacated by mutual agreement. A de novo hearing resulted in the decision which is the subject of this review. In that decision  which we affirm in part  the agency determined that the true rent ceiling should have been set at $106. Despite the fact that Revithes had relied on the earlier erroneous decision in collecting rent of $189 between January 1982, and October 1982, the RHC trebled the rent refunds during that time. [36] The trebling of the damages was clearly erroneous. The regulations in effect at the time of this decision provided for the trebling of damages in the following circumstances: Refunds of rent shall be trebled unless the surrounding circumstances of the violation(s) indicate that the landlord acted in good faith, and that good cause exists for providing a single award.[ [37] ] 14 DCMR § 3410.2 (1985). Regardless of the good or bad faith of Revithes prior to January 1, 1982, her reliance upon the agency's erroneous establishment of a rent ceiling of $189 as of January 1, 1982, and her subsequent collection of that rent, indicate that Revithes acted in good faith and constitute good cause for the single rent refund. This court's decision in Harris v. District of Columbia Rental Commission, 505 A.2d 66 (D.C.1986), is not to the contrary. There, the landlord sought relief from the damages which resulted from the administrative delay between the time of the initial hearing and the decision thereon. By contrast, here, an erroneous decision was rendered, it was relied upon, and treble damages were nonetheless imposed for the post-decision period. Under the regulations in effect at the time, such a result is untenable. Consequently, if the agency determines on remand that Revithes has not in fact satisfied her burden of proving an exemption until sometime after January 1, 1982, the agency must nonetheless vacate the award of treble damages for the period subsequent to January 1, 1982.