Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Settlements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel approves several tenant-landlord settlements; Lynch agreement accepted conditionally
Summary
The panel accepted multiple stipulated orders resolving landlord-tenant complaints — Dowdy and Humphrey orders were accepted outright, Lynch’s agreement was conditionally accepted pending the tenant’s signature, and a Dunkley/Malley settlement was accepted pending payment confirmation and rescission of a notice to quit.
The hearing panel accepted several stipulated orders that resolved pending landlord-tenant matters.
Moderator (speaker 1) summarized each stipulated agreement reached in prior settlement conferences and presented signed copies for the panel to accept. The Dowdy stipulation was accepted after confirmation both parties had signed. According to the record, the stipulation set monthly rent for the covered period (the document as provided recorded $14.37 per month for the term described).
On a separate matter the panel accepted a stipulated agreement in the Humphrey case that set monthly rent at $15.60 from April 1 through March 31 of the next year after the parties signed the agreement.
On the Lynch matter (Summerhill partnership), Moderator read the final version of the stipulation: the parties agreed that rent would be $13.90 per month from May 1 through March 31, 2027 (an increase of $1.00 from the prior rent of $12.90). The landlord completed five repairs noted by the complainant — cleaning and mildew removal in a bathroom, replacement of the bathroom fan, replacement of two window screens, repair of an upstairs heating knob, and filling gaps in kitchen cabinets — and one remaining repair (re-polyurethane of the living-room floor) is to be completed on or before Aug. 31. Moderator noted the tenant would be responsible for out-of-pocket costs associated with temporary relocation for the floor work and the respondents must file a short, itemized report within five days of completing the last repair. Moderator asked Miss Lynch if she would sign; she said she would “attempt” to sign and return the agreement the next day and the panel conditionally accepted the stipulation pending receipt of her signature.
On the Dunkley/Malley matter, Moderator said Attorney Gottlieb represents the respondents and that remote participants Miss Dunkley and Mr. Malley agreed to a settlement that discounted March rent by $300 and left a $650 balance (including late fees) due by March 31; the tenants reported paying via the landlord portal, and the panel conditionally accepted the stipulated order pending confirmation of the payment and the landlord’s rescission of its notice to quit.
Quotes and reaction: Attorney Carabetta (speaker 7) said, “I’m fine with the terms of the agreement as they stand.” Miss Lynch (speaker 9) told the panel, “I’m just really upset about what had occurred earlier today,” while agreeing to sign the stipulation the next day. Tenants reported portal delays and a preference for alternative payment channels.
Why it matters: The accepted stipulations resolve several pending cases, include monetary terms and repair commitments, and — in Lynch’s case — require a final signature and a remaining repair before full closure. The Dunkley/Malley settlement was conditionally accepted pending confirmation of a $650 payment and rescission of a notice to quit.
Next steps: Hearing staff will circulate the executed stipulations and monitor compliance and payment confirmation; the Lynch stipulation will be finalized upon receipt of the tenant’s signed agreement and the landlord’s completion of the remaining repair.
