## Facts

- Nokomis N. Hinton rented a single-family house in Washington, D.C. from Sealander Brokerage Co. under the federal Section 8 program.
- The lease rent was $700 per month; by the end of the tenancy, the Section 8 subsidy covered the full $700, so no tenant portion of rent remained due.
- Hinton told Sealander she intended to move out and gave a 30-day notice.
- Before the 30 days expired, Sealander changed or added locks to the doors after believing the premises had been abandoned and after observing conditions it attributed to vandalism.
- Hinton alleged that Sealander changed the locks before the notice period ended and did not give her a key, which prevented her from entering and retrieving belongings left inside.
- Sealander asserted it had secured the unit to protect it and that it had told Hinton she could retrieve her property.
- Hinton sued for damages, claiming wrongful eviction by self-help and wrongful denial of access to her personal property.
- Sealander denied liability and later filed a counterclaim seeking money damages tied to Hinton’s alleged continued possession/holdover and the landlord’s storage of her remaining property.
- After a bench trial, the Superior Court ruled for Sealander on Hinton’s claim and for Sealander on its counterclaim, awarding $7,808.30 plus statutory interest, described as compensation for storing Hinton’s property (including time in the unit and later in off-site storage).
- Hinton appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a landlord commits wrongful self-help eviction by changing the locks and denying a tenant a key during a period when the tenant’s right to possession has not yet ended and rent is paid.
2. Whether the trial court could reject the tenant’s wrongful-eviction claim while also awarding the landlord money on a theory that treated the tenant as a holdover/trespasser based on property left in the unit.
3. Whether the landlord’s claimed need to secure the premises from damage justified restricting the tenant’s right of entry during the unexpired notice period.

## Decision

- The D.C. Court of Appeals held that restricting a tenant’s right of entry—such as by changing locks and not providing a key—during a period when the tenant still has a right to possession constitutes wrongful eviction by self-help.
- The court recognized a landlord may take steps to secure a unit, but doing so cannot include denying access to a tenant who remains entitled to enter during the paid, unexpired tenancy period.
- The court concluded the trial court’s rulings were in tension because they effectively treated Hinton as both properly excluded and simultaneously responsible as a holdover/trespasser in a way that supported the storage-based award.
- The court vacated the judgment on both Hinton’s claim and Sealander’s counterclaim and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- In the District of Columbia, a landlord generally may not dispossess a tenant through self-help; eviction must proceed through lawful process.
- A landlord wrongfully evicts a tenant by restricting the tenant’s right of entry while the tenant retains a right to possession, including by changing locks and withholding a key.
- A landlord’s interest in protecting property may justify securing a vacant unit, but it does not justify barring entry to a tenant whose possessory rights have not ended.
- When a landlord seeks damages based on holdover status or storage of a tenant’s property, the fact and effect of any landlord-caused lockout must be considered; the tenant’s liability cannot be determined using inconsistent premises about possession and exclusion.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that Sealander’s lock change coupled with withholding a key during Hinton’s unexpired, paid period of possession amounted to wrongful self-help eviction, found the trial court’s rejection of that claim inconsistent with the storage/holdover-based award to the landlord, and vacated and remanded for reconsideration of both the claim and counterclaim.


Hinton v. Sealander Brokerage Co., 915 A.2d 95 (2007)