Kelly Adjustment Co. v. Burton

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Kelly Adjustment Co. v. Burton

278 A.2d 460, 1971 D.C. App. LEXIS 340

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 22, 1971

DocketNo. 5658

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.2d 460 (Kelly Adjustment Co. v. Burton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kelly Adjustment Co. v. Burton, 278 A.2d 460, 1971 D.C. App. LEXIS 340 (D.C. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

FICKLING, Associate Judge:

This is an appeal from the dismissal of a complaint filed by a collection agency (appellant) seeking payment of rent allegedly owed by appellee. The trial court relied on our decision in Harrison v. J. H. Marshall & Associates, D.C.App., 271 A.2d 404 (1970). That opinion, however, does not govern the situation here and therefore we reverse.

In the instant case the Dravillas Real Estate Company leased premises to the ap-pellee, who failed to pay rent allegedly due from March 1, 1968, until May 22 of that year. On May 22 appellee was evicted. On June 12, 1968, Dravillas assigned its claim for rent to the appellant, a collection agency. Appellant, which does not have a real-estate broker’s license, filed this suit.

In the Harrison case, we held that the collection agency was acting as a real-estate broker as defined in D.C.Code 1967, § 45-1402 and, since it was not licensed as a broker, D.C.Code 1967, § 45-1407 prohibited the filing of a suit for rent. In that case, however, there was an existing landlord-tenant relationship on the date of assignment and the assignment was for rents yet to accrue as well as for past due rent; the lease was still in effect when the collection agency filed its suit. In this case the landlord-tenant relationship terminated prior to the assignment to the collection agency. Though, technically, rent is being collected, in reality the appellant is merely attempting to collect a debt. Since its conduct in no way relates to, nor did it ever relate to, an existing landlord-tenant relationship, it is improper to subject the collection agency to the Real Estate and Business Brokers’ License Act.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FICKLING, Associate Judge:

This is an appeal from the dismissal of a complaint filed by a collection agency (appellant) seeking payment of rent allegedly owed by appellee. The trial court relied on our decision in Harrison v. J. H. Marshall & Associates, D.C.App., 271 A.2d 404 (1970). That opinion, however, does not govern the situation here and therefore we reverse.

In the instant case the Dravillas Real Estate Company leased premises to the ap-pellee, who failed to pay rent allegedly due from March 1, 1968, until May 22 of that year. On May 22 appellee was evicted. On June 12, 1968, Dravillas assigned its claim for rent to the appellant, a collection agency. Appellant, which does not have a real-estate broker’s license, filed this suit.

In the Harrison case, we held that the collection agency was acting as a real-estate broker as defined in D.C.Code 1967, § 45-1402 and, since it was not licensed as a broker, D.C.Code 1967, § 45-1407 prohibited the filing of a suit for rent. In that case, however, there was an existing landlord-tenant relationship on the date of assignment and the assignment was for rents yet to accrue as well as for past due rent; the lease was still in effect when the collection agency filed its suit. In this case the landlord-tenant relationship terminated prior to the assignment to the collection agency. Though, technically, rent is being collected, in reality the appellant is merely attempting to collect a debt. Since its conduct in no way relates to, nor did it ever relate to, an existing landlord-tenant relationship, it is improper to subject the collection agency to the Real Estate and Business Brokers’ License Act.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.2d 460, 1971 D.C. App. LEXIS 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-adjustment-co-v-burton-dc-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack