Application Didn't Meet Useful Life Requirements

April 1, 2000

LVT Number: 14029

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of new replacement windows. The DRA ruled for landlord in part. Landlord had installed storm windows with screens in 1985. Landlord installed the new replacement windows in 1994. So the DRA deducted the cost of the prior MCI from landlord's new MCI increase. Landlord appealed and lost. The new windows were installed before the 20-year useful life of the aluminum windows installed in 1985 had expired. And the new windows weren't installed for energy conservation purposes. They were installed in response to lead paint concerns.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of new replacement windows. The DRA ruled for landlord in part. Landlord had installed storm windows with screens in 1985. Landlord installed the new replacement windows in 1994. So the DRA deducted the cost of the prior MCI from landlord's new MCI increase. Landlord appealed and lost. The new windows were installed before the 20-year useful life of the aluminum windows installed in 1985 had expired. And the new windows weren't installed for energy conservation purposes. They were installed in response to lead paint concerns. So there was no reason to waive the useful life requirements.

Mitcheltown Apts. Inc.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. KC710003RO (1/13/00) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

KC710003RO.pdf154.47 KB

Topics

More like this