This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

EASTERLY, Associate Judge.

The issue presented in this case is whether a trial court may grant a landlord (or his agent) judgment of possession and an award of back rent based on a rent increase which the tenant has objected to and refused to pay. A landlord of a non-rent-controlled property, who is unconstrained by lease terms, may certainly seek to rent his property for any amount he thinks the market will bear; and if the tenant in occupancy refuses to pay the rent a landlord wishes to charge, the landlord may direct the tenant to vacate the apartment so the landlord may rent to someone else. But, as this court's precedent makes clear, a landlord may not unilaterally raise the rent over a tenant's objection and then obtain a back rent award for the amount the tenant has refused to pay. Because Cathie Gill, Inc., improperly received such an award, we now reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Facts

The tenants in this case, Charles Mines and his wife, initially rented the property in question, an apartment, in June 2011. They signed a one-year lease setting their rent at $3,000/month. Shortly before the lease expired in 2012, the two owners of the apartment ("the landlords") asked the tenants to sign a new one-year lease with a 3% rent increase. The tenants ultimately declined to sign a new lease but remained in the apartment; it was their understanding that their expired lease terms remained in effect. As to the landlord's understanding of the situation the record is silent, but there is no indication in the record that the landlords objected or asked the tenants to leave. Instead, this arrangement continued, apparently without incident, for seven months. Then, at the end of 2012, Cathie Gill, a management company hired by the landlords, contacted the tenants. Cathie Gill informed the tenants that, going forward, it would collect the rent on the landlords' behalf, and it gave the tenants notice of a 6% rent increase ($3,180), effective February 1, 2013. The tenants again declined to pay an increase in rent and continued to pay $3,000/month, apparently still to the landlord.1 Again, there is no indication in the record that Cathie Gill (or the landlords) objected to the tenants' failure to pay the rent increase or asked the tenants to leave. Five months later, on June 28, 2013, Cathie Gill filed suit for a judgment of possession and an award of back rent based on the unpaid rent increase.

At trial, Mr. Mines proceeded pro se; Cathie Gill was represented by counsel. The proceedings were informal and took the form of a conversation between the court, counsel for Cathie Gill, and Mr. Mines. Neither party disputed the history of their relationship detailed above. Mr. Mines argued that he and his wife had never agreed to pay more for their apartment and thus they were only obligated to pay the landlords the $3,000/month as negotiated in the (expired) June 2011 lease.2 To support this argument, Mr. Mines attempted to rely on paragraph 24 of his expired lease addressing "termination/hold-over," which provided, inter alia, that "[i]f Tenant shall hold over after the expiration of the term of this Lease, tenant shall, in the absence of any written agreement to the contrary, be a Tenant from month to month at the monthly rate in effect during the last month of the expiring term."3 Meanwhile, Cathie Gill acknowledged the tenants' continued payment of $3,000/month, but argued that the tenants were responsible for paying the demanded rent increase.

The trial court ruled for Cathie Gill, explaining to Mr. Mines that once the lease expired, the landlords, with reasonable notice, were free to raise the rent in any amount they chose (since the apartment was not rent-controlled) and that Mr. Mines and his wife, if they remained in the apartment, were obligated to pay that amount. The trial court accordingly awarded $1,586 in back rent, late fees, and court costs to Cathie Gill.

II. Analysis

We review de novo the following question of law: whether, based on the facts undisputed by the parties, the tenants had an obligation to pay the demanded rent increase.4 Mr. Mines, proceeding pro se, argued that he and his wife were entitled to remain in the apartment, paying the same amount of rent set by the expired lease. The trial court determined, however, that Cathie Gill, as the landlords' agent, was entitled to raise the rent with reasonable notice, and that the tenants would be obligated to pay if they remained in possession. In other words, the trial court adopted Cathie Gill's argument that the landlord could unilaterally determine the amount of rent to be paid. As with any type of contract, however, there must be both an offer and acceptance before there is an enforceable agreement. The record before us establishes that there was no agreement, express or implied, for the tenants to pay a 6% rent increase for a month-to-month tenancy after their lease expired in June 2012. And in the absence of such an agreement, the court could not award the landlords back rent, although it could award the landlords damages based on fair use and occupancy value (if Cathie Gill presented such evidence).

We begin our analysis by clarifying what, if any, agreement the landlords and the tenants had vis-a-vis the payment of rent at the time that Cathie Gill, as an agent for the landlord, sought to increase the tenants' rent in February 2013. Mr. Mines argued at trial, as he does on appeal, not only that he and his wife did not agree to pay a 6% rent increase, but also that the June 2011 lease, in particular paragraph 24 (addressing termination/holdovers), was still operative in February 2013, and froze their rent to the amount bargained for in the lease. But the lease was only for one year, and it had expired by the time Cathie Gill sought to raise the rent.

This does not mean, however, that the landlords and the tenants had no legally recognized agreement with respect to the tenants' continued occupancy of the apartment. At the end of a contractual lease term, if a new lease is not signed but the tenant remains, a landlord has two choices: the landlord may refuse to allow the tenant to remain in the property5 or the landlord may implicitly agree to the tenant's continued occupation of the property and a holdover tenancy may commence.6 The creation of such a tenancy is a function of statute in the District.7 This is a periodic, month-to-month tenancy, whereby the tenant is bound to the original lease's terms, including the amount of rent.8 Each party to this implicit agreement is entitled to a 30-day notice to end this tenancy.9 The landlords in this case opted not to evict the tenants and thus a holdover tenancy commenced in June 2012.

The question is what happened to this holdover agreement when, seven months into the holdover tenancy, Cathie Gill notified the tenants that, in a month's time, the rent would increase by 6%. Cathie Gill took the position at trial that, the tenants' objection to the rent increase notwithstanding, the fact that the tenants had remained in the apartment meant that they were obligated to pay the increased rental amount. Put another way, Cathie Gill argued that the terms of the holdover tenancy were unilaterally altered by the landlords and that the tenants were bound by this change. This is not the law.

"[A] unilateral statement of rent does not per se create a contract."10 Instead, all contracts, including contracts to rent property, require offer and acceptance, i.e., "a meeting of the minds."11 The fact that a tenant has remained in an apartment after a demanded rent increase does not necessarily indicate that such a meeting of the minds has occurred. As the court explained in Groner, "[i]t is generally agreed that where a landlord notifies a tenant that he must pay a higher rental if he remains in possession and the tenant without objecting continues in possession, the tenant will be regarded as having impliedly agreed to the increase and is bound to pay it."12 But "[i]f a landlord insists on one rate of rental and the tenant insists on another, there is no meeting of the minds. . . . The law will not, by implication, infer an acceptance by the defendant of the terms which he had so persistently refused and which plaintiff had so insistently demanded as a condition."13

It was undisputed at trial that the tenants in this case refused to pay the rent increase. Mr. Mines explained that he had not agreed to a 3% increase requested at the end of his lease term and he had not agreed to the 6% rent increase announced seven months into his holdover tenancy. And indeed Cathie Gill acknowledged that Mr. Mines had objected by letter to the 6% rent increase and had continued to pay $3,000 in rent until Cathie Gill filed suit. Under the circumstances, Cathie Gill could not obtain a judgment for possession or for back rent based on a rent increase it knew the tenants had refused to pay.14

The only remaining question, then, is whether Cathie Gill, as the landlords' agent, was entitled to damages based on fair use and occupancy value.15 More particularly, the question is whether Cathie Gill is entitled to recover more than the $3,000/month the landlords received while the tenants occupied the property. Damages not having been recognized as Cathie Gill's only recourse, no evidence was presented to substantiate a damages award. Nor was Mr. Mines given the opportunity to fight a damages award, perhaps by demonstrating that the landlords had received and accepted his payment of $3,000 without reservation, thus indicating that there had been accord and satisfaction.16 Remand of the case is thus required to allow the parties to litigate these issues.

For the reasons set forth above, we vacate the award of $1,586 in back rent, late fees, and court costs to Cathie Gill and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.17

So ordered.