Opinion ID: 2422569
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Bell Hearing

Text: In response to Lanier's request for a protective order of $1,890, reflecting the 110% increase provisionally approved by the RA, Graham argued that a protective order, if any, should not exceed the $917 undisputed rent she had been paying. Both parties presented evidence at the Bell hearing. Graham testified on her own behalf, and Arnold Litman, Lanier's agent, testified for appellee. Graham insisted that there were housing code violations in her unit and provided confirmatory photographic evidence. She further testified that her monthly income was only $2,036 and that, at most, she could afford to pay $1,150 per month; a rent above that would force her to find new housing. Lanier, through Litman, did not dispute this testimony that any protective order over $1,150 per month would effectively force Graham out of the housing unit. Instead, Litman described the efforts Lanier has made to rectify code violations that had stood in the way of past rent increases. It was conceded that Graham's rent had not been increased in ten years as a result of disputes over the existence of those violations. In deciding what protective amount to set, Judge Richter recognized that if he set the amount too low and Lanier were to prevail in the administrative proceeding, it would be an injustice to [Lanier] if [Graham has] been paying less than the full amount. On the other hand, he noted that [i]f [Graham] wins in front of the Rental Administrator and has gotten thrown out in the interim, it would be a grave injustice to her. In ultimately setting the protective amount at $1,500 a month, the judge credited and gave weight to Litman's testimony about the remediation of past code violations, but gave less weight to Graham's testimonyunchallenged that more than a modest rent increase would effectively mean her eviction. He explained: I believe that if Ms. Graham wishes to stay that's an amount that she should be able to make, and even if she can't that would be a fair amount to protect the plaintiff. It's sort of hard for me to believe that [the agency is] not going to approve an increase after there's been no increase in 10 years, particularly when there's been efforts to rectify the problems.