The SAFE Regulation Amendment Act Shakes Up Premises Liability in the Capital
The blight of violent crime in the nation’s capital is hitting close to home quite literally thanks to a recent conviction for first degree murder and related firearm offenses in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. The jury assembled in United States v. Matthews reported its verdict on August 12, 2024: It was beyond a reasonable doubt that Bernard Matthews shot and killed Diamonte Green in the entry way of an apartment building located at 33rd & C Street, S.E., D.C. 20020. The verdict came just on the heels of a proposal announced by District of Columbia Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb to amend nuisance legislation addressing similar scenarios: The Secure Apartments for Everyone (“SAFE”) Regulation Amendment Act.
The SAFE Regulation Amendment Act, if approved by the Council for the District of Columbia, strengthen legal measures for holding property owners accountable for lapses in security by modifying the Drug-Related Nuisance Abatement Act (“DRNA”) of 1998 (codified as amended at D.C. CODE §§ 42-3101 et seq.). The DRNA currently authorizes community-based organizations, among others, to bring actions in the Civil Branch of the Superior Court for the District of Columbia to abate, enjoin and prevent, drug, firearm, and prostitution-related nuisances. D.C. CODE § 42-3102. The DRNA therefore provides a statutory alternative to traditional common law causes of action against property owners like nuisance, negligence, etc.
A DRNA complainant is required to provide notice to a property owner of an alleged nuisance and adverse impacts fourteen days before filing an abatement action. D.C. CODE § 42-3103(b). The complainant is required to attach an affidavit of at least one tenant supporting its allegations. D.C. CODE § 42-3103(c). The DRNA allows the Court to seal complaints and supporting affidavits to protect witnesses considering the sensitive nature of community reporting. D.C. CODE § 42-3105.
A DRNA complainant has the burden of proof to demonstrate a nuisance by the preponderance of the evidence. D.C. CODE § 42-3108. Reasonable notice provided to a property owner fourteen days in advance of filing the action, however, creates a statutory presumption that the property owner knows about the alleged nuisance. Id. The Court is the ultimate finder of fact under the DRNA. In other words, the DRNA prescribes bench trials rather than jury trials. D.C. CODE § 42-3101(c). General reputation evidence about an alleged nuisance is admissible. D.C. CODE § 42-3109.
A DRNA complainant can seek equitable relief, including preliminary injunctions without having to show a threat of irreparable harm; orders mandating property repairs; orders mandating better locks, video surveillance, and security personnel; orders mandating that properties be vacated, sealed, or demolished; and orders requiring the disgorgement of income. D.C. CODE § 42-3104(a); D.C. CODE § 42-3110(a), (b)(2)–(7); D.C. CODE 42-§ 3114; Thanos v. District of Columbia, 109 A.3d 1084 (D.C. 2014). The Court, at its discretion, can award damages to the complainant if the property owner fails to abate an alleged nuisance after receiving notice. D.C. CODE § 42-3111. The Court can also award prevailing parties their attorneys’ fees and costs. D.C. CODE § 42-3110(b)(1).
The SAFE Regulation Amendment Act, if it enters into force, will change DNRA in several important ways. Here are three examples:
First, the SAFE Regulation Amendment Act will expand the scope of remediable nuisances by including a broader swathe of crimes involving firearms.
Second, the SAFE Regulation Amendment Act will expand the scope of equitable remedies available to complainants. It will require the Court to consider costs associated with orders mandating a property owner to hire private security by comparing total gross income and net income produced by the property during the three-year period preceding the abatement action. The burden lies on the property owners to show that the costs are too high to justify that specific kind of relief. The SAFE Regulation Amendment Act will also authorize the Court to order the District of Columbia Department of Buildings to file a security report analyzing the property in dispute on the docket of the abatement action.
Third, the SAFE Regulation Amendment Act will expand the scope of legal remedies available to complainants. The Court currently can award unspecified damages under the DRNA against a property owner if the property owner received notice about complained nuisances and failed to abate them. The Court will, under the proposed amendments, be able to assess against the property owner $1,000.00 per day for thirty days following the date when the property owner received notice, and up to $5,000.00 per day for every day after the thirtieth day in damages.
The SAFE Regulation Amendment Act will increase the exposure of property owners in the nation’s capital and may trigger copycat legislation in other parts of the country. Consider the tragic murder of Pava LaPere, a beloved tech executive and startup co-founder, who was named to Forbes’ 30 under 30 list in 2023. Jason Dean Billingsley, a man on parole after being convicted for a first-degree sex offense, followed LaPere into her apartment complex in Baltimore, Maryland and beat and strangled her death. Billingsley was sentenced by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland on August 30, 2024, to life imprisonment. There is a possibility that other cities like Baltimore will replicate D.C.’s statutory efforts to incentivize landlords to shore up residential security to prevent similar tragedies in the future.
The stakes for property owners to efficiently address nuisance complaints in the capital, in short, have never been higher under the proposed amendments. Laws like these not only compound the interest of property owners in swiftly putting insurance carriers on notice when significant nuisances are reported, but also making affirmative efforts to prevent them in the first place. Property owners are therefore wise to invest in more security measures in anticipation of these amendments not only for existing properties, but in developing and designing new properties too.
The SAFE Regulation Amendment Act is currently pending before the D.C. Council. You can monitor its progress here.
Written by attorney Joshua T. Carback, Esq.
