The Washington, DC Landlord and Tenant Court announced today new procedures meant to reduce the amount of time parties and counsel have to spend waiting in court. All efforts towards this goal are greatly appreciated.

Effective immediately, the court is implementing the following procedures:

· Cases called immediately after roll call: Attorneys requesting nonredeemable or money judgments should not wait in the courtroom after roll call to have those cases called if there are defendants waiting to speak with that attorney outside the courtroom. Requests for nonredeemable and money judgments will be handled when an attorney’s other cases are before the court. If an attorney has no other matters, then his or her requests for nonredeemable and money judgment will be called shortly after roll call.

· Notes: The purpose of a “Note” is to prevent a default from being entered when there is a question as to validity of service on the defendant or when the complaint may not allege facts sufficient, if true, to entitle the plaintiff to possession of the premises. See L&T Rule 11(b). If a plaintiff is not requesting a default, the case does not necessarily need to be called to address the note. Therefore, the new standard practice will be for the courtroom clerk to announce that a note has been attached to a case only when a plaintiff requests a default at roll call. An attorney’s notes will not be called immediately after roll call if defendants are waiting to meet with the attorney.

· IFP Applications: If the applicant receives one of the types of public assistance or health benefits listed in Question #1 of the IFP Application, the applicant may file the IFP with the Clerk’s Office in advance of the initial hearing and a judge will review the application without a hearing. If the applicant does not receive a benefit listed in Question #1, or if the application is filed the same day as another hearing, the current process will not be changed and the application will be reviewed at the hearing.

· Jury Demands and Vacating Initial Hearings by Consent: If a defendant properly has filed a jury demand, the parties may file a consent praecipe vacating the initial hearing and stipulating to a protective order (by agreeing to an amount, scheduling a Bell hearing, or stating that a protective order is not requested). The clerk or IJO will certify the case to the Civil Actions Branch and enter the protective order, without holding a hearing. The court will provide form praecipes for this purpose.

· Interview and Judgment Officer (IJO): Parties are encouraged to use the IJO to perform all of the following functions:

o When one or more party is appearing pro se, the IJO has the authority to:

1. Approve Form 4 and 4a consent judgment praecipes (CJP) signed by all parties.

2. Approve late fees of $10 per month.

3. Enter protective orders requiring payment into the court registry, including protective orders that include a number of varying payment terms.

4. Approve disbursement orders.

5. Accept jury demands and certify cases to the Civil Actions Branch.

o When all parties are represented by an attorney, the IJO has the authority to:

1. Approve all consent judgment agreements, including nonredeemable judgments.

2. Accept jury demands and certify cases to the Civil Actions Branch.

3. Enter protective orders requiring payment into the court registry, including protective orders that include a number of varying payment terms.

4. Enter other consent orders, including:

a. Orders to amend (nonjury cases only).

b. Orders for repairs.

c. Orders related to discovery (nonjury cases only.)

d. Orders to substitute parties (nonjury cases only).

o Among other things, the IJO does not have the authority to approve judgments entered into by a non-attorney on behalf of a party, consolidate cases, approve Applications to Proceed IFP, or continue trials.

In the coming months, more changes may be coming, so it will be important to stay informed as to these updates to make sure that the cases are filed and heard properly.

The Washington Post Express, in the Ready to Rent section, published an article today titled, “How to break your lease easily — and minimize fees.” The Washington Post Express quoted Attorney Aaron Sokolow, who regularly advises landlords and tenants on DC real estate law. The article can be found here.

Last year the District of Columbia City Council passed a bill requiring landlords to supply all tenants with a pamphlet, published by the Office of the Tenant Advocate, that explains basic DC landlord and tenant law. This pamphlet is known as the District of Columbia Tenant Bill of Rights. The law (§ 42-3502.22, Disclosure to Tenants) can be found here.

On April 3, 2015, the District of Columbia Tenant Bill of Rights was first published.  The DC Register Tenant Bill of Rights can be found here.  The requirements take effect 90 days after the April 3, 2015 publication.  The Bill of Rights includes a signature line for the tenant to sign to confirm receipt.

The penalty for willful noncompliance with the disclosure requirements is severe.  The law says, “The rent for any rental unit shall not be increased if the housing provider: (1) Willfully violates the provisions of this section; or (2) Fails to comply within 10 business days of written notice of any failure to comply with the provisions of this section.”

While the goal of this law is clear, from a DC real estate attorney’s prospective, this law raises many questions.  The disclosures must be given to “prospective tenants.”  Does that mean that ALL applicants need to be given the Tenant Bill Of Rights?  Aren’t all applicants prospective tenants by definition?  What if the chosen tenant signed the form, but not the applicants who were not chosen?  Is it logistically feasible to have all applicants sign off on receipt of the Bill of Rights?  Will a failure to have non-chosen applicants sign for receipt of the Bill of Rights invalidate future rent increases?  If so, for how many years?  Is there a statute of limitations?  If the landlord cannot prove that each prospective tenant was given, and signed, the Bill Of Rights, are ALL future rent increases invalid?  How does that affect future owners?  How might this affect the sales price of a rental property?   Will lenders want to see the signed Bills Of Rights for all prospective tenants before lending to new owners?  What if the signed Bill of Rights is lost or damaged?  What constitutes willful noncompliance?

The enactment of the DC Tenant Bill of Rights is yet another example of a seemingly simple law that may be the source of litigation for years to come.