Do landlords have to provide AC? The Washington Post quoted Attorney Aaron Sokolow in an article about whether landlords are required to provide air conditioning. In the District of Columbia, the answer is: it depends. There is no law requiring landlords to provide tenants with air conditioning. But, if the landlord provides air conditioning as a service to the tenant, then the landlord must maintain it. DC Regulations define “maintain” as keeping the unit 15 degrees cooler than the outside. You can read the Washington Post article here.
Fairness in Renting Clarification Amendment Act of 2023
On October 11, 2023, DC Mayor Bowser signed a new law governing Washington, DC Landlord and Tenant Law called the Fairness in Renting Clarification Amendment Act of 2023. A copy of the Act can be found here. This law dictates that a landlord must give at least 60-days’ notice of any rent increase. It also limits rental application fees to a maximum of $50, prohibits a landlord from charging additional cleaning expenses, and limits other fees that might otherwise be charged.
Attorney Aaron Sokolow Quoted in the Washington Post
Attorney Aaron Sokolow was quoted in the Washington Post in an article regarding a Washington, DC commercial landlord and tenant case. The column describes a pending commercial eviction case involving the District of Columbia and Union Station over a bicycle transit center. The story states, “Aaron Sokolow, an expert in District landlord-tenant disputes at the law firm Battino & Sokolow, said the suit could lead to the city being evicted unless officials present a strong defense. The vast majority of cases are settled outside of court, added Sokolow, who has biked by the Union Station building while headed to court.” You can read the article here.
Appeal regarding Real Estate Commissions in Washington, DC
Attorney Aaron Sokolow was recently quoted in a Bisnow article about the appeal decision involving real estate commissions in Washington, DC. The Court of Appeals overruled the lower court that previously held that the commission may not be due if a dual representation was not properly disclosed. The lower court strictly construed the technical requirements of the statute. The Court of Appeals took a more flexible approach. You can read the article here.