## Facts

- David C. Sobelsohn leased an eighth-floor penthouse apartment in a large Washington, D.C. building for about ten years; the unit included a private roof deck.
- The building’s management company and Sobelsohn’s landlord for the dispute was American Rental Management Company (ARMC).
- ARMC conducted major repair and improvement work on the building, including repairs to lower-floor balconies.
- Sobelsohn alleged the work generated “intense” weekday daytime noise that substantially interfered with daily life in his apartment.
- Sobelsohn also alleged ARMC used his private roof deck to support the project, including securing scaffolding with cables and storing equipment.
- The lease included (i) a provision protecting against noise that “unreasonably interfered” with enjoyment of the unit and (ii) provisions granting the landlord access to make necessary repairs.
- Sobelsohn filed a small-claims action seeking $5,000 for interference with his use and enjoyment of the apartment and roof deck.
- At trial, the court excluded an engineer’s decibel-meter evidence offered by Sobelsohn and heard no evidence establishing that use of the roof deck was necessary for the repairs.

## Issues

1. Whether a landlord’s repair-related construction noise and use of a tenant’s private deck can constitute actionable interference with the tenant’s lease-based rights to use and enjoyment.
2. Whether the trial court erred by treating “quiet enjoyment” as a narrow, property-based doctrine and failing to consider modern, contract-based landlord-tenant obligations reflected in residential leases.
3. Whether the trial court’s evidentiary rulings and truncated factual inquiry improperly prevented an assessment of the reasonableness and necessity of the complained-of conduct.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals vacated the judgment for ARMC and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the trial court construed the governing doctrines too narrowly by concluding, as a matter of law, that Sobelsohn could receive “no relief of any kind” even if the noise was intense and the deck was intruded upon.
- The court directed reconsideration under a contract-based view of residential leases, with an adequate factual inquiry into the reasonableness of the noise and the necessity and reasonableness of using the roof deck.
- The court did not find ARMC liable as a matter of law; it required proper legal framing and fuller factfinding.

## Legal Principles

- In modern residential leasing, the lease is treated primarily as a contract reflecting the tenant’s expectations of goods and services, not merely a conveyance of possessory title.
- Tenant claims for interference with use and enjoyment are not limited to total ouster or title-based invasions; substantial, unreasonable landlord-created disturbances may be actionable under contractual obligations and quiet-enjoyment principles as applied in modern landlord-tenant law.
- A landlord’s contractual right of access to make repairs does not automatically justify unreasonable noise or unnecessary occupation of a tenant’s appurtenant private space; necessity and reasonableness are fact questions.
- Objective evidence (such as sound measurements) may be relevant to deciding whether construction noise unreasonably interfered with a tenant’s enjoyment under the lease.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that the trial court wrongly foreclosed the tenant’s claims by applying an overly restrictive, property-based view of quiet enjoyment, and it remanded for reconsideration under contract-based landlord-tenant principles with a fuller evaluation of evidence concerning the reasonableness of the noise and the landlord’s use of the tenant’s roof deck.


Sobelsohn v. Am. Rental Mgmt. Co., 926 A.2d 713 (D.C. 2007)