Opinion ID: 2321014
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Landlord's Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability Constituted a Breach of the HAP Contract.

Text: Ms. Anderson contends that DCHA has never brought a cause of action to adjudicate whether the landlord breached the HAP contract with DCHA. She argues that, absent litigation of a cause of action by DCHA and a determination that the landlord breached the HAP contract, she is entitled to recover the total abatement awarded by the trial court for the breach of the HAP contract. We disagree because the landlord's breach of the implied warranty of habitability also constituted a breach of the HAP contract, and a breach of the HAP contract entitled DCHA to exercise its rights against the landlord under the HAP contract. While the HAP contract was entered into between DCHA and the landlord, several paragraphs in the HAP contract indicate that a breach of the federal Housing Quality Standards (HQS) constitutes a breach of the HAP contract. [15] The relevant provisions of the HAP contract, demonstrating this fact, are as follows: Part B, Section 2(c), Lease of Contract Unit: The lease for the contract unit must include word-for-word all provisions of the tenancy addendum [16] required by HUD.     Part B, Section 3, Maintenance, Utilities, and Other Services: a. The owner must maintain the contract unit and premises in accordance with the housing quality standards (HQS).     c. If the owner does not maintain the contract unit in accordance with the HQS . . . the [Public Housing Agency (PHA)] may exercise any available remedies. PHA remedies for such breach include . . . suspension of housing assistance payments, abatement or other reduction of housing assistance payments, termination of housing assistance payments, and termination of the HAP contract. d. The PHA shall not make any housing assistance payments if the contract unit does not meet the HQS . . .     Part B, Section 8, Owner Certification: During the term of this contract, the owner certifies that: a. The owner is maintaining the contract unit and premises in accordance with the HQS. b. The contract unit is leased to the tenant. The lease includes the tenancy addendum . . . and is in accordance with the HAP contract and program requirements . . .     Part B, Section 10, Owner's Breach of HAP Contract: a. Any of the following actions by the owner . . . is a breach of the HAP contract by the owner: (1) If the owner has violated any obligation under the HAP contract, including the owner's obligation to maintain the unit in accordance with the HQS. (Emphasis added).     c. The PHA's rights and remedies for owner breach of the HAP contract include recovery of overpayments, suspension of housing assistance payments, abatement or other reduction of housing assistance payments, termination of housing assistance payments and termination of the HAP contract. (Emphasis added). d. The PHA may seek and obtain additional relief by judicial order or action . . .     Part C, Section 7(a)(1 ), Maintenance, Utilities, and Other Services: The owner must maintain the unit and premises in accordance with the HQS. These provisions of the HAP contract make clear that the owner of the leased premises must maintain the unit in accordance with the HQS. The record supports the fact that the landlord failed to comply with the HQS provisions. Based on the poor conditions of the premises, see note 6 supra, the trial court concluded that the rent should have been substantially less than the $1,350 charged by the landlord. DCHA took definitive steps to enforce Part B, Section 3 of the HAP contract when it notified the landlord by letter dated June 13, 2001 that his unit did not meet the HQS. Subsequently, in a letter dated June 21, 2001, DCHA notified the landlord, as well as Ms. Anderson, that an inspection of the property revealed outstanding HQS violations for which repairs had still not been made. The landlord's failure to make the repairs necessary to remedy the HQS violations resulted in a breach of the HAP contract, pursuant to Part B, Section 10(a)(1) of the HAP contract. Therefore, the landlord's failure to cure the numerous housing code violations in Ms. Anderson's unit, cited by a DCHA inspector on two occasions, effectuated a breach of the HAP contract by the landlord and gave DCHA the right to seek a rental abatement under Part B, Section 10(c) of the HAP contract for those moneys it paid to the landlord on behalf of Ms. Anderson during the time that these housing code violations went unaddressed. [17]