## Facts

- WIN Corp. operated the Allen-Lee Hotel in Washington, D.C., under a license and certificate of occupancy as a “rooming house.”
- Michael Harkins, Jr. began occupying a room in September 1994 after signing a hotel registration card agreeing to a weekly occupancy charge of $85 plus tax and expenses.
- WIN provided linens, maid service, and furniture for the room and retained substantial control consistent with rooming-house operations.
- By April 1995, Harkins was delinquent on weekly payments and was told he would be evicted if he did not pay the arrearage.
- WIN did not file a possessory action; on May 3, 1995, it changed the locks and locked Harkins out.
- Harkins sued for wrongful eviction, arguing WIN had to use the judicial eviction process rather than self-help.
- The trial court ruled Harkins was a roomer/lodger (not a tenant) and that self-help eviction was permissible against roomers; it granted summary judgment to WIN.

## Issues

1. Whether Harkins’s occupancy in a licensed rooming house made him a tenant protected by statutory eviction procedures, or a roomer/lodger outside those protections.
2. Whether District of Columbia eviction law makes judicial process the exclusive means to regain possession from a roomer/lodger, or whether common-law self-help remains available.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for WIN Corp.
- The court held Harkins was a roomer/lodger, not a tenant, given the weekly hotel-style registration, services provided, and lack of exclusive possession.
- The court held statutory exclusivity of judicial eviction (as recognized for tenants) did not clearly extend to roomers/lodgers in licensed rooming houses.
- Because self-help remained lawful against a roomer/lodger, the lock change did not constitute a wrongful eviction as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- The statutory abolition of self-help eviction applies to tenants, but does not automatically extend to occupants who are not tenants under the governing housing and eviction framework.
- Roomer/lodger status may be indicated by nonexclusive possession and substantial operator control, including provision of services (e.g., linens, maid service, furnishings) and hotel-style weekly registration arrangements.
- Absent clear legislative direction to the contrary, common-law self-help may remain available to regain possession from a roomer/lodger in a licensed rooming house.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that a delinquent occupant of a licensed rooming house who lacks tenant status and exclusive possession may be removed by common-law self-help, and therefore WIN’s lockout was lawful without a judicial possessory action.


Harkins v. WIN Corp., 771 A.2d 1025 (D.C. 2001)