Portland Rent Board finds landlord rebutted presumption of retaliation in 11 Smith Street appeal

The Portland Rent Board on May 13 considered an appeal from tenant Sean Maguire alleging landlord retaliation after an owner attempted to raise rents and then issued a notice not to renew the lease for Unit 3 at 11 Smith Street.

The board first determined that a March 20 email from co‑tenant Zoe Kennedy — which told the landlord the local ordinance caps increases at 10% — constituted an assertion of tenant rights on behalf of all tenants of the unit. The board then found that the landlord’s March 27 email followed by a notice dated April 2 amounted to an adverse action occurring within six months of that assertion, creating a rebuttable presumption of retaliation under the ordinance (cited in the hearing as “section 6 2 37 e”).

During the hearing, appellant Sean Maguire described the timeline: he said the building was purchased in June 2025, that his roommates had exchanged messages with the landlord about rent increases, and that he later filed a rent‑control complaint and provided text messages and emails to the board as evidence. "I fully intended to re‑sign," Maguire said, explaining confusion among roommates and his own absence while fighting wildfires. Attorney Jeff Seltzer, representing Maguire, told the board: "This is a very clear case of retaliation," pointing to the close timing between a tenant assertion and the landlord’s notice to vacate.

Landlord Brent Adler told the board he is a recent purchaser who did not live in the building, that he misunderstood some of the owner‑occupied rules and the rent cap initially, and that after learning the ordinance he considered several options including using an owner‑occupied or other exemption or performing renovations. "I am very clear now on a 10% cap on rent," Adler said, and described a plan to repaint, refinish floors and, if needed, obtain permits for electrical work as part of renovations. Adler said units 1 and 2 remained occupied and registered with the city.

Board members debated two legal questions: whether a single co‑tenant’s assertion can be treated as an assertion for all tenants on a single lease, and whether the landlord’s subsequent communications and actions rebut the presumption of retaliation. Counsel for the appellant argued a tenant collective can assert rights through one tenant’s written notice; board members discussed factual indicators of intent, the short timeframe between the March 20 email and the landlord’s later communications, and the credibility of the landlord’s financial explanation.

The board voted in sequence. Members voted to close the public portion of the hearing, then voted that Zoe Kennedy’s March 20 email represented an assertion of rights for the unit (motion passed). The board also voted that the March 27 communication and the April 2 notice constituted an adverse action within six months of that assertion and thus created a rebuttable presumption of retaliation. Finally, after reviewing testimony and the landlord’s written statements that cited rising taxes, expenses and purchase price and described planned renovations and pursuit of exemptions, the board voted that the landlord had rebutted the presumption.

The board directed counsel to prepare a written decision reflecting those factual findings and the legal conclusions; counsel indicated the record provided sufficient findings to do so. The hearing closed with the board’s adjournment.

The decision resolves the retaliation appeal in the landlord’s favor, while recording that the board accepted the tenant collective’s assertion of rights and found the timing of the landlord’s notice met the ordinance’s adverse‑action window. The case highlights the board’s approach: (1) identify whether rights were asserted, (2) determine whether an adverse action occurred within the statutory window, and (3) evaluate whether the landlord’s evidence rebuts the presumption of retaliation.