From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crisp v. Caldwell

Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Mar 18, 1949
65 A.2d 206 (D.C. 1949)

Opinion

No. 745.

March 18, 1949.

On Petition for Review of Order of the Administrator of Rent Control.

Proceeding by Marguerite V. Crisp to review an order of the Administrator of Rent Control granting unsatisfactory rent increases on petitioner's apartments, opposed by S.H. Caldwell and others.

Order affirmed.

Harry L. Ryan, Jr., of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Herman Miller, of Washington, D.C., for respondents.

Ernest F. Williams, of Washington, D.C. (Ruffin A. Brantley, of Washington, D.C., on the brief), for Administrator of Rent Control.

Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and CLAGETT, Associate Judges.


This appeal is from an order of the Rent Administrator granting rent increases on the Longfellow Apartments, 5521 Colorado Avenue, Northwest. It is brought here by the same owner who appealed in Crisp v. Giles, No. 744, D.C.Mun.App., 65 A.2d 204, decided by us today.

Here 66 apartments are involved and the increase requested was based on claimed increases since January 1, 1941 in taxes, maintenance, operating costs and expenses. Here, as in Crisp v. Giles, No. 744, the Administrator called on petitioner to file a full and complete statement of all the evidence introduced at the examiner's hearing. A statement of proceedings and evidence was filed but in it we do not find anything which would justify a reversal of the Administrator's decision. The statement does not reveal the total rents collected by the landlord before the petition was filed or those authorized by the Administrator's order. Nor is this information to be found anywhere else in the record before us. Furthermore, though some 66 apartments are involved the record reveals the Administrator's decision on only three. In petitioner's brief it is stated that the Administrator's order would give the landlord an annual increase of $963. But no such figure appears anywhere in the record.

Thus it seems clear that the landlord in this case has failed to establish any basis on which we could say that there was error in the decision of the Administrator.

Affirmed.

HOOD, Associate Judge, concurs in the result.


Summaries of

Crisp v. Caldwell

Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Mar 18, 1949
65 A.2d 206 (D.C. 1949)
Case details for

Crisp v. Caldwell

Case Details

Full title:CRISP v. CALDWELL et al

Court:Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Date published: Mar 18, 1949

Citations

65 A.2d 206 (D.C. 1949)

Citing Cases

Sulzer v. Bellevue Incorporated

The examiner's findings were dated November 17, 1948, effective November 29, 1948, whereas the first of our…