Judge Clifton A. Nembhard

Read Full-Text Decision

Landlord commenced this nonpayment proceeding against tenant Bailey serving a five day notice previously seeking over $3,100 in arrears. The petition repeated allegations within the predicate, but added March and April 2017 rent. Bailey interposed an answer alleging the petition sought rent that an agency was allegedly to pay, moving for dismissal and arguing the predicate notice was defective as landlord was suing for Living in Communities (LINC) subsidy portion of the rent, but failed to plead Bailey’s LINC status. The court ruled a proper rent demand was a condition precedent to a nonpayment proceeding. Landlord claimed the monies sought in the demand were correct as it only sought Bailey’s portion of rent. Yet, the court found this incorrect as it was undisputed Bailey participated in LINC for which she was only liable for $372.41, and landlords were not to demand, request or receive any payments from tenants beyond that authorized in the lease and rider landlords signed. But, despite same, the five day notice demanded Bailey pay the entire contract rent for March 2017 rendering the notice fatally defective. It stated the fact the petition later sought $372.41 for March did not change this, granting Bailey’s motion to dismiss.

Judge Clifton A. Nembhard

Read Full-Text Decision

Landlord commenced this nonpayment proceeding against tenant Bailey serving a five day notice previously seeking over $3,100 in arrears. The petition repeated allegations within the predicate, but added March and April 2017 rent. Bailey interposed an answer alleging the petition sought rent that an agency was allegedly to pay, moving for dismissal and arguing the predicate notice was defective as landlord was suing for Living in Communities (LINC) subsidy portion of the rent, but failed to plead Bailey’s LINC status. The court ruled a proper rent demand was a condition precedent to a nonpayment proceeding. Landlord claimed the monies sought in the demand were correct as it only sought Bailey’s portion of rent. Yet, the court found this incorrect as it was undisputed Bailey participated in LINC for which she was only liable for $372.41, and landlords were not to demand, request or receive any payments from tenants beyond that authorized in the lease and rider landlords signed. But, despite same, the five day notice demanded Bailey pay the entire contract rent for March 2017 rendering the notice fatally defective. It stated the fact the petition later sought $372.41 for March did not change this, granting Bailey’s motion to dismiss.