IVY & ASSOCIATES
444 Charleston Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Feb 21st, 2022
Elizabeth Harrison, Esq.,
242 Winding Way, Baltimore,
Re: Eviction Notice for M.s Emily Folly
This office advocates on behalf of M.s Emily Folly in the case of Emily Folly v. Sherman Helmsley. Sherman Helmsley claims that he sue Emily Folly under Md. Code Real Property, § 8-402.1 for reclamation of the apartment. Repossession of the apartment is acceptable, but the landlord has to respect specific rules, and the tenants can approve such requests. Helmsley states that M.s Folly lacks a lease contract with the College Park Apartment since there was not any lawful transfer of the apartment from the previous tenant, Jack Lemmonaid. Sherman Helmsley also states that M.s Emily Folly is in violation of the contract for utilizing the apartment for commercial use. However, Mr Helmsley sent a letterhead to our client stating that the contract was unacceptable and invalid since it was given to her short of written agreement, but the landlord continued to receive rent. The issue of Ms Folly has only become a concern after the apartment manager, Betsy Evans, discovered that M.s Folly has been baking pies for her church fundraising.
The initial lease was issued to Jack Lemmonaid. Mr Lemmonaid was cognizant that the agreement could not be transferred but failed to give this information to Emily Folly which led to miss direction. M.s Folly took the non-transferable agreement from the previous tenant in good faith, not alert that the lease was non-transferable. M.s Folly has been living in residence for quite some time. Ms. Folly has remained an upstanding and excellent resident who follows the property guidelines and pays her rental fee on time. However, after the landlord discovered that the person living in residence was not Mr Lemmonaid, he notified Emily that she breached the lease contract but continued to accept the rent payment. The landlord, Sherman Helmsley, failed to start the eviction proceedings after discovering the breach of contract. If anything, the landlord is to be blamed for failing to check the statutes with the tenants to confirm that they are still living in the apartment. For a number of months, the landlord has been receiving rent from my client and is aware of the breach of contract, which he has ignored. Considerably, when a landlord accepts rent from the tenant while acknowledging the breach of contract, the landlord has waived the breach.
In Chertkof V. Southland, the Court of Appeals of Mary land stated that receiving rental fee after notifying the tenant of a violation of agreement makes it hard for Chertkof to evict Southland. The court ruled that the act alone is a continuation and acceptance of the lease because Chertkof continued to receive rental payments after the breach notice. Acceptance of the rent is considered an affirmation by the landlord that the lease is effective. If the landlord needs to declare that the tenant has breached the contract, they should terminate the agreement and is expected to decline any rent payment. However, suppose the landlord has accepted the rent. In that case, all the prior breaches will typically be waived, and the landlord has to wait for a new violation to enforce his rights and declare a breach of the contract. A landlord wishing to exercise eviction should notify the tenant about the contract breach and tell them the reason for the violation and that they will not renew the lease at the end of their current term. The landlord should not receive any rent unless the parties enter into a temporary or new written agreement. Therefore, Mr Helmsley had the opportunity of enforcing the penalties of the contract violation after the notification he gave to the tenant, but he decided not to evict them during that period.
Under the Maryland Code, Real Property, 8-402.1, the events upon violation of contract, three steps must be considered prior to a tenant being evicted. First, the tenant must have violated the contract. They need to be given a 30-day notice that they have dishonored the agreement and that appropriate actions will be taken for eviction. Third, the tenant living in residence has refused to leave in goodwill. The landlord sent a letter for the breach of contract, which did not indicate that he had planned to start the 30-day eviction process for violating the lease contract.
Ms Folly is not in violation for her contract for any commercial use and thus should not be kicked out of the apartment. The tenant has been baking pies in her apartment for the sales and donations to her church. M.s Folly does not generate income from baking the pies since they are not for business. Using the kitchen to bake the pies for fundraising and sales to her church should not be considered a commercial use. She bakes the pies and sells them at a cost that is just sufficient to cover ingredients costs, which means she does not generate any income from making the pies but just a form of donation to her church members. Helmsley claims are a misrepresentation since he considers baking as a commercial activity. The statement by Helmsley is untrue since there are no facts that the tenant is using the apartment for commercial activity. Mr Helmsley is creating these false allegations about the tenant as a ground for eviction since he failed to take action upon realizing the breach of contract when the time was right and appropriate to do so. More than sixty days have passed since the landlord sent a letterhead. Relatively, College Park Apartments have continued to accept rent payment from M.s Folly. Mr Helmsley should reconsider filing suit against Ms Folly and get into a new contract agreement for her to stay in the residence since she uses Mr Lemmonaid lease agreement.