Justia Landlord - Tenant Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff appealed from the order of the district court granting defendant's motion to dismiss where the suit arose out of a previous landlord/tenant action filed in district court. At issue was whether section 3-10-302, MCA, conferred jurisdiction on justices' and district courts for actions arising under the Montana Residential Landlord and Tenant Act of 1977. The court held that the clear terms of the Montana statute provided that justices' courts shared concurrent jurisdiction with district courts. The court also held that plaintiff's arguments were not made in good faith and sanctions were warranted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint and remanded for a determination and assessment of costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred on appeal.View "Fick v. Brown" on Justia Law

Plaintiff's claims against her landlord, on behalf of her children, alleged violations of the disclosure requirements contained in the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, 42 U.S.C. 4851-4856. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The statute does not provide the children with a cause of action to sue for the violations.View "Roberts v. Hamer" on Justia Law

Appellants appealed the district court's order awarding them attorney fees following settlement of their claims against appellees brought under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619, and California law. At issue was whether the district court erred by deducting some of the hours billed and lowered the hourly rates requested by appellants. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion either by relying, in part, on its own knowledge and experience, or by setting an hourly rate of $350 for appellants' lawyers. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "Ingram, et al. v. Oroudjian, et al." on Justia Law

In a previous landlord/tenant action in 2007, attorney Kevin Brown filed suit against Ronald Fick in district court on behalf of two tenants who alleged that Fick had unlawfully evicted them from a unit he manages. The district court found for Fick. Fick filed the present action in 2010, arguing that Brown had fraudulently brought the prior action in district court rather than in justice's court. The district court granted Brown's motion to dismiss, and Fick appealed. At issue was whether Mont. Code Ann. 3-10-302 confers concurrent jurisdiction on justices' and district courts for actions arising under the Landlord and Tenant Act. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that (1) the clear terms of Montana law provide that justices' courts share concurrent jurisdiction with district courts; and (2) Fick's arguments were not made in good faith, Fick's appeal is frivolous and vexatious and filed for purposes of harassment, and sanctions are warranted. Remanded. View "Fick v. Brown" on Justia Law

In district court, appellants were held liable for violating the Town of Levantâs Article 1010 land use ordinance by allowing a third partyâs mobile home to be moved onto and remain on their land after receiving multiple notices of the violation. At issue was whether appellants could be held responsible for a violation caused by a third party and whether there was evidence that they played a role in leaving the mobile home on their property. The Court affirmed, holding that (1) under the four-factor analysis outlined in Town of Boothbay v. Jenness, the landowners were responsible for land use violations committed on their property, and (2) there was sufficient evidence that the appellants had notice of the violation and the ability and opportunity to correct the violation but failed to do so.

The tenant appealed an eviction order. The appeals court reversed, finding that the management company had not given notice required by state law. One member of the state appellate panel opined that the company violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692. The tenant sought damages in federal court. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the management company is not a debt collector under the Act. The company is an agent of the building owner and "obtained" an interest a debt when it was given the right to collect the tenant's rent, before she fell behind on payments.