Chateau Foghorn LP v. Hosford

455 Md. 462

168 A.3d 824

CHATEAU FOGHORN LP

v.Wesley HOSFORD

No. 73, Sept. Term, 2016.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

August 28, 2017

Argued by Avery Barton Strachan (Kerri L. Smith, Silverman Thompson Slutkin White LLC, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.

Argued by Matthew C. Zernhelt (Baltimore, MD; Theodosia Saffo, Maryland Legal Aid Bureau, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent.

Katherine Kelly Howard, Esquire, Thomas R. Tompsett, Jr., Esquire, Maryland Multi–Housing Association, Inc., 1421 Clarkview Road, Suite 100B, Baltimore, MD 21209, Amicus Curiae for Maryland Multi-Housing Association, Inc.

Anthony J. May, Murnaghan Appellate Advocacy Fellow, Public Justice Center, One North Charles Street, Suite 200, Baltimore, MD 21201, Amicus Curiae for Public Justice Center, Homeless Persons Representation Project, and Disability Rights in Maryland.

Argued before Barbera, C.J., Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, JJ.

Getty, J.

"The Government of the United States, ... though limited in its powers, is supreme; and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land[.]"

Chief Justice John Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland , 17 U.S. 316, 406, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819).

"[B]ecause the States are independent sovereigns in our federal system, we have long presumed that Congress does not cavalierly pre-empt state-law causes of action. In all preemption cases, and particularly in those in which Congress has legislated ... in a field which the States have traditionally occupied, we start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress."

Justice John Paul Stevens, Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr , 518 U.S. 470, 485, 116 S.Ct. 2240, 135 L.Ed.2d 700 (1996) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

In all cases involving the interplay between the laws issued by the federal government and those enacted by the states, courts must balance the twin principles stated above: First, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause,¹ federal law enacted under the delegated powers and authority of the federal government is the supreme law of the land; Second, there is a presumption against federal laws or regulations preempting or superseding state laws, particularly in fields that have historically been the province of the states.

In the instant case we are called upon to apply those principles to Maryland Code, (1974, 2010 Repl. Vol.), Real Property Article ("RP") § 8–402.1, which provides that a court ruling on a landlord-tenant dispute must conclude that a breach of a lease is "substantial and warrants an eviction" before granting judgment for possession of the leased premises. We must decide whether the Maryland statute conflicts with, and is thus preempted by, federal law and regulations mandating that federally-subsidized Section 8 project-based housing developments include provisions in their tenant lease agreements to provide that engaging in any drug-related criminal activity on or near the leased premises is grounds for termination of the lease. For the following reasons, we shall conclude that RP § 8–402.1 does not conflict with the congressional intent behind the federal law and regulations at issue and, therefore, we shall hold that the statute is not preempted by federal law.

I.BACKGROUND

Wesley Hosford, the Respondent, is severely disabled and has been wheelchair-bound since 1987. He suffers from incomplete paralysis in his extremities, with muscle spasms and sensations leaving him in daily pain.² Since 1989, Mr. Hosford has resided at Ruscombe Gardens Apartments, an apartment building in Baltimore City owned by Chateau Foghorn LP ("Foghorn"), the Petitioner. Ruscombe Gardens Apartments provides housing for low-income elderly and disabled tenants that is subsidized through a federal "Section 8" project-based rental subsidy program.³

In 2012, Mr. Hosford renewed his lease with Ruscombe Gardens, and signed a "Drug–Free Housing Policy" addendum to the lease, which provided, in pertinent part,

DRUG–FREE HOUSING POLICY

IN CONSIDERATION of the execution or renewal of the lease of the dwelling unit identified in the lease, Owner and Tenant agree as follows:

1. Tenant, any member of tenant's household, or a guest or other person under the tenant's control shall not engage in or facilitate criminal activity on or near the project, including, but not limited to, violent criminal activity or drug-related criminal activity. ...

2. Tenant or any member of tenant's household, or a guest or other person under the tenant's control shall not engage in any act intendedto facilitate criminal activity, including drug-related criminal activity on or near the project premises.

3. Tenant or members of the household will not permit the dwelling unit to be used, or to facilitate, criminal activity, including drug-related criminal activity or possession of drug paraphernalia, regardless of whether the individual engaging in such activity is a member of the household or a guest.

4. Tenant or member will not engage in the manufacture, sale, or distribution of illegal drugs at any location, whether on or near project premises or otherwise.

* * *

6. VIOLATION OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS SHALL BE A MATERIAL VIOLATION OF THE LEASE AND GOOD CAUSE FOR TERMINATION OF TENANCY. A single violation of any of the provisions of this policy shall be deemed a serious violation and a material noncompliance with the lease. Unless otherwise provided by law, proof of violation shall not require criminal conviction, but shall be by a preponderance of the evidence.

(Emphasis in original.)

In 2014, Ruscombe Gardens Apartments was experiencing a bed bug infestation, and Foghorn hired an extermination company to treat units in the complex. On June 10, 2014, two exterminators entered Mr. Hosford's unit to perform extermination treatment and saw a marijuana plant growing in a pot in his bathtub.⁴ They reported this to the apartment's management office. A security guard employed by Ruscombe Gardens Apartments went to Mr. Hosford's unit and saw the same marijuana plant.

Thereafter, police were called, and an officer responded and came to Mr. Hosford's unit. The officer examined the plant in the bathroom, concluded it was marijuana, and confiscated it. He then issued Mr. Hosford a criminal citation for the possession of marijuana. A police chemist tested the plant found in the apartment and concluded that it was marijuana. Subsequently, Mr. Hosford was charged in the District Court of Maryland sitting in Baltimore City with possession of less than ten grams of marijuana. Ultimately, a nolle prosequi was entered as to that charge.

In June 2014, Foghorn gave Mr. Hosford a notice of termination of his lease. When he did not vacate the unit within thirty days of that notice, Foghorn initiated an eviction action pursuant to RP § 8–402.1⁵ against Mr. Hosford in the District Court of Maryland sitting in Baltimore City, claiming that Mr. Hosford had breached the terms of the drug-free housing agreement addendum to his lease. Mr. Hosford thereafter filed a timely prayer for a jury trial in the circuit court, claiming that the value of his right to continued occupation of his apartment exceeded the $15,000 threshold set by statute.⁶

The case was subsequently transferred to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for a jury trial. Prior to the scheduled date of trial, Foghorn filed a motion for summary judgment with a supporting memorandum, asserting:

• That there was no genuine dispute of fact that Mr. Hosford had possessed marijuana in his apartment;

• That, while Mr. Hosford had not been convicted of a crime for that marijuana possession, his possession of marijuana was illegal under federal law and, at the time of his citation by a Baltimore City police officer, was also illegal under Maryland law, and therefore constituted "drug-related criminal activity" in violation of the drug-free housing policy addendum to Mr. Hosford's lease;

• That the provisions of the drug-free housing policy addendum permitting eviction for drug-related criminal activity to Mr. Hosford's lease were mandated by federal law and regulations governing leases for federally-subsidized housing; and,

• That the requirement in RP § 8–402.1 that a trial court order eviction only if a tenant's breach is "substantial and warrants an eviction" should be held to be preempted by federal law in Mr. Hosford's case, because that requirement conflicts with federal law and regulations governing the Section 8 project-based housing program which, according to Foghorn, "have vested [Foghorn] with the discretion to determine whether drug-related criminal activity by a tenant is substantial and warrants eviction, without any qualifications."

In response, Mr. Hosford claimed that there was a dispute of material fact as to whether the plant in his apartment was marijuana. He also noted that his criminal citation was for possession of less than ten grams of marijuana. And, he presented medical records to show his history of muscle spasms and other sensations and pain as a result of his paralysis, along with an expert affidavit that the use of marijuana "is likely to provide ... therapeutic or palliative relief" from such symptoms. On the basis of that information, he asserted that even if he had possessed marijuana his actions did not constitute a criminal offense pursuant to Maryland Code, Criminal Law Article ("CR") §§ 5–601(c)(2)(ii) or 5–601(c)(3)(iii)(1), and thus were not a breach of his lease. Finally, he contended that even if he had breached the terms of his lease, the trial court could still determine whether the breach was "substantial and warrants an eviction" pursuant to RP § 8–402.1.

On March 18, 2015, the circuit court held a hearing on Foghorn's motion for summary judgment. On March 23, 2015, the circuit court issued a written order granting summary judgment in favor of Foghorn as well as...