MD Supreme Court denies rent-escrow appeal as moot

Listen to this article

The Maryland Supreme Court last week dismissed a case about whether renters can use the rent-escrow process to hold unlicensed landlords accountable — without paying into escrow — ruling that the case was moot.

Maryland’s high court on Nov. 24 dismissed an appeal by Gary Wilson, a former resident of a large apartment complex in Riverdale Park, in Prince George’s County, that was rife with “roaches, water damage, broken exterior doors, inconsistent hot water, broken elevators, fire hazards, and general filth.”

Wilson and another renter had filed rent-escrow actions against the landlord, Tanglewood Venture, and during the case they learned the landlord was unlicensed. The Prince George’s County District Court ordered them to pay future rent, but not past rent, into an escrow account. They declined, because the landlord lacked a license, and the court dismissed the case as moot. They appealed to the Prince George’s County Circuit Court, which also dismissed the case as moot.

Wilson’s co-plaintiff moved out before the circuit court dismissed the case; he moved out after. He then appealed to the Maryland Supreme Court, asking if a judge can force a renter to pay into an escrow account when their landlord is unlicensed.

Wilson, who was represented by CASA, the immigrant advocacy group, argued the rent-escrow law, which is designed to “ensure habitable conditions,” should be construed to favor the tenant. He argued these cases shouldn’t be thrown out when the renter declines to pay due to the landlord’s lack of a license.

He cited a 2022 Maryland Supreme Court opinion that held “a landlord may not file an action against a tenant to recover unpaid rent that is attributable to the period when the property was not licensed.”

The court granted review and heard arguments in October, but ultimately decided not to rule on the merits of the case.

“With Tenants having no possessory interest remaining in the property, there is no rent to abate, and Landlord presently owes Tenants no duty to fix the problems in their former units,” Justice Steven Gould wrote for the unanimous majority. “Thus, whether a court in a rent escrow action can order a tenant of an unlicensed rental unit to pay rent into escrow is a moot issue in this case.”

Gould wrote that there was little “potential for collateral consequences,” because the landlord promised not to seek payment for the period during which it was unlicensed. (Riverdale Park declined to renew Tanglewood Venture’s license in early 2022; the landlord got its license back in August 2024.)

John Grimm, a principal at the firm Bregman, Berbert, Schwartz & Gilday in Bethesda, represented Tanglewood Venture. He did not answer a phone call on Tuesday.

Jonathan Riedel, supervising attorney at CASA, who represented Wilson, said he was disappointed by the ruling, but noted that the court split the litigation costs evenly.

“I think this is going to leave a lot of tenants in the lurch,” he said in an interview.

Riedel said it’s difficult to get the court to rule in tenants’-rights cases such as these, because the residents often leave before the cases are resolved.

“It’s very, very hard to get these cases up to the Supreme Court. If you’ve already proven, as Mr. Wilson has, that you have dangerous defects in your unit, how long are you going to stay there?”

Meanwhile, Wilson and residents of more than two dozen units are suing Tanglewood Venture in a civil case in Prince George’s County Circuit Court. They allege negligence for substandard living conditions, illegal debt collection for filing failure-to-pay-rent actions against residents while unlicensed, and other claims. The landlord filed a motion to dismiss last week, two days after the Supreme Court denied Wilson’s rent-escrow appeal.

Wilson, a military veteran, was homeless and in transitional housing before he moved into the Tanglewood apartment complex. Now he’s back in transitional housing in Washington, D.C.

Riedel said he could have tried the rent-escrow process in district court again, this time making the monthly payments.

“He chose the ‘move out’ option, and I think everybody in similar circumstances would probably do the same.”