Baltimore City Rent Court: A Stress-Free Place For A Landlord
By: Joe Magar
Do you owe? Did you not pay? These are clearly very different questions. Unfortunately, some judges in rent court use these phrases interchangeably, in a manner that results in disadvantage for renters wishing to discuss their grievances. A tenant who did not pay rent is different than a tenant who owes the rent. For a tenant who finds themselves in front of the rent court must make that distinction to the court, if they seek a remedy.
In fact, some version of this question is the first – and often only – thing the judge asks the tenant after asking the landlord or the landlord’s agent how much rent is owed, for what time frame and if any other fees are applied. If the tenant answers ‘yes’ to this question [that money is owed/not paid] then the judge automatically issues a “consent” judgement in favor of the landlord. The case is over without the tenant having any further opportunity to discuss conditions in the property, whether the property is unlicensed, or even if the tenant paid for repairs to the property. The judge will only ask the tenant if they need assistance with the rent as the bailiff hands them some paperwork before shuffling them out the door. Saying “yes” in the rent court, essentially means the landlord wins and the tenant does not have the chance to assert any defenses. A tenant who agrees to the amount of rent that has not been paid, but may not OWE that money, comes one step closer to eviction without having their side of the story heard in court.
There were instances that morning when this confusion became evident. In one case, a woman was asked if she agreed to the amount the landlord said she owed. She started to agree, but paused and said “no.”
The judge looked down at her and, in an impatient and patronizing tone, asked “Are you sure?” He then proceeded to ask her if she wanted a trial, because “a trial would be today.”
Intentionally or not, the judge was intimidating the tenant, and the clear implication was that a same-day trial would not serve the tenant well. The tenant backed down.
She agreed to the amount owed and the judge issued a consent judgment for the landlord. Keep in mind, the tenant never consented to owing the money-only that she did not pay.
This interaction served in stark contrast to both the tone and substance of the judge’s interactions with landlords. Before a tenant is asked anything, there are often several interactions between the judge and the landlord or agent. Often there are discrepancies, errors on forms, inappropriate late fees that come up. The landlords/agents are given the opportunity to explain, and almost always to correct their mistakes, even if it means postponing the hearing. For example, this particular morning, three landlords did not check the Department of Defense database to confirm that their tenants were not listed as active duty military. Two out of those three were allowed to come back later after fixing their error. The third landlord’s word was apparently good enough when he assured the judge he saw the tenant that morning. These interactions are usually cordial and professional. Sometimes the judge gets upset with a landlord. But this more often come across as mild annoyance, and in once case tainted with humor as illustrated in one cringeworthy interaction between the judge and a landlord whose trustworthiness and character immediately displayed them to the entire courtroom.
Towards the end of the morning a mobile phone rang – a pretty big no-no in court. In full view of the courtroom a man sitting towards the front could be seen futzing around with his belongings trying to silence his device. This man was there as a landlord and his case was called shortly thereafter.
When the judge asked him about his ringing phone, this landlord had the chutzpah to immediately deny it, claiming his phone was off. I had expected this to anger the judge, but instead he chuckled, asking if the landlord was really going to “perjure himself” with his first statements and required him to show his call log before having the bailiff confiscate his phone. Of course, this judge was annoyed, but he was also smiling. The levity in the way the judge grinned over at his colleagues was in stark contrast to the tone he took with the uncertain female tenant trying to advocate for herself; his tone was more ‘get a load of this guy’ more than ‘how dare you.’
He then heard the landlord’s case. They discussed it. No tenant was present so a default judgement for landlord was issued. After the landlord was told he could come back at the end of the day to retrieve his phone, he smiled at the judge and negotiated it down to 3:30pm.
Compare this interaction to the one mentioned earlier. While respecting the rules and customs of the court, a tenant had the nerve to reconsider her answer to the only question she was going to be asked that day. In return she was met with frustration and impatience that served to coerce this tenant into foregoing her right to assert a defense. Her story was not heard.
A landlord broke the rules and then lied about it. For this offense he was met with chop-busting and the minor inconvenience of having his phone temporarily confiscated, but he was unimpeded in presenting his case to the judge. His story was heard despite his lack of respect for the court. Apparently, the judge thought it was funny.