N※N

Airbnb-Sitting Sparks Legal Firestorm in Washington, D.C.

  //house-home.news-articles.net/content/2025/12/1 .. ng-sparks-legal-firestorm-in-washington-d-c.html
  Published in House and Home on Monday, December 15th 2025 at 17:17 GMT by wjla

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source
• 🞛 This publication contains potentially derogatory content such as foul language or violent themes

Airbnb‑Sitting Sparks Legal Firestorm in Washington, D.C. – A Deep‑Dive into the Shadija Romero Case

In a striking turn of events that has reverberated across Washington, D.C.’s rental market, a homeowner’s attempt to evict a squatter from a former Airbnb listing has ignited a broader debate about tenant rights, short‑term rentals, and the city’s housing protections. The dispute, which erupted after a former Airbnb guest named Shadija Romero began occupying a property without a valid lease, has garnered national attention, spurred viral social‑media clips, and prompted the Washington, D.C. Housing Authority to weigh in on the legality of the homeowner’s eviction notice.

The Anatomy of the Dispute

The property at the heart of the controversy sits in a densely populated, sought‑after neighborhood that has seen a surge in short‑term rentals in recent years. In early 2024, the homeowner—Rocanne Douglas—took the house off the market and listed it on Airbnb. A few months later, the listing was removed, and the home was again offered for rent on a traditional, long‑term basis. Unfortunately, that transition was not smooth.

After the Airbnb listing was taken down, Shadija Romero—a former guest who had enjoyed a pleasant stay—refused to vacate. She began treating the house as her own, making renovations and claiming that her presence was “essential” for her family’s safety. According to Douglas, Romero never signed a lease and did not pay rent, essentially occupying the property without any legal or contractual obligation to the homeowner.

When the homeowner tried to enforce an eviction, Romero pointed to several Washington, D.C. statutes that grant occupants protections, even in cases that might ordinarily be deemed squatting. The dispute escalated when Romero circulated a video on TikTok showing her “day in the life” inside the house, complete with homemade décor, a “thank you” sign to the neighborhood, and an earnest appeal for the community to support her claim. The clip quickly went viral, bringing hundreds of thousands of views and sparking online commentary about whether a short‑term rental guest could claim tenant rights after the rental period had ended.

Legal Context: DC Housing Law vs. Short‑Term Rentals

At the core of this controversy is D.C.’s “Housing and Landlord‑Tenant Act” (HLTA), which outlines the responsibilities of landlords, the rights of tenants, and the procedures for eviction. While the HLTA primarily targets long‑term leases, it also contains provisions that apply to occupants who have been in a dwelling for more than 60 days. Under those provisions, an occupant who has lived in a home for a significant period may be able to claim “occupancy rights,” which effectively transform the occupant into a tenant with legal protections.

These protections can include a requirement that a landlord provide proper notice, a legitimate reason for eviction, and, in some circumstances, even compensation for the occupant’s relocation. The law was designed to protect renters in the city’s traditionally high‑rent market, but its reach into short‑term rental scenarios has been a gray area until now.

In the Romero case, the homeowner’s lawyer cited the “Statute of Limitations” and argued that because the occupant had no formal lease, no tenancy existed and thus no tenancy protection could apply. Romero, however, countered that the time she had lived in the property—just over two months—qualifies her for protection under the HLTA, citing precedents where occupants who had been living without a lease were granted the right to remain until a proper eviction process was completed.

The city’s Housing Authority responded by clarifying that while short‑term rentals are not automatically exempt from tenancy laws, the law does not automatically turn an Airbnb guest into a tenant. The Authority emphasized that the key factor is whether an “agreement of occupancy” existed, even if informal. The matter remains unresolved, with a court hearing scheduled in May 2025.

The Role of the Rental Company and Eviction Notice

An intriguing element of the story involves the “7News Rental Management Company.” According to court filings, the homeowner had previously engaged the company to manage the property during its Airbnb phase. The company claimed that they had no knowledge of Romero’s continued presence after the listing was removed, and they were not parties to the eviction notice.

The homeowner’s lawyer sent an eviction notice to Romero on April 12, 2024. The notice demanded that she vacate the premises within 30 days and stipulated that if she did not comply, the homeowner would file for formal eviction through the court system. The letter cited the homeowner’s right to regain possession and referenced D.C. Code § 33‑3.30, which allows a property owner to reclaim a dwelling that has been occupied without a lease agreement.

Romero’s attorney responded, arguing that the notice was invalid because the homeowner had not demonstrated a legitimate lease or rental agreement, a requirement under the HLTA. The attorney also requested that the court order the homeowner to compensate Romero for her “investment” in the property, citing her renovations and the “emotional distress” caused by the eviction.

Community Response and the Viral Video

The viral TikTok clip that Romero posted served as a catalyst for public debate. The clip showed Romero in front of a “Thank You” mural she painted on the exterior wall, accompanied by a voice‑over pleading for community support. The post amassed over 450,000 likes and triggered a flurry of comments from both supporters of the homeowner and advocates for tenant protection.

Social media users used hashtags such as #SquatForRent and #DCHousingRights to discuss whether short‑term rentals should be treated as temporary or permanent accommodations. Some argued that homeowners should be able to protect their properties from unapproved occupants, while others warned that lax enforcement could undermine the city’s tenant‑rights framework and leave renters vulnerable to eviction.

The city’s Housing Authority spokesperson—Maria Ramirez—issued a statement emphasizing the importance of “balanced housing policies that protect both property owners and tenants.” Ramirez acknowledged that the Romero case was “complex” but underscored the necessity of following proper legal procedures before any eviction can be enforced. She also noted that the city has a “Housing Support Hotline” for residents who find themselves in similar disputes.

Current Status and What It Means for Washington, D.C.

As of late May 2025, the case is still pending in the municipal court. While the homeowner’s lawyers maintain that the eviction notice was perfectly legal, Romero’s counsel insists that the city’s tenancy statutes have already provided her with a protective shield.

This case is poised to set a legal precedent. If the court sides with Romero, it would confirm that short‑term rental guests who occupy a property for a month or more could gain legal tenant status under D.C.’s housing laws—effectively treating them as "temporary tenants." Conversely, a ruling in favor of the homeowner could reinforce the notion that short‑term rentals remain outside the scope of tenant protection, thereby granting property owners greater flexibility.

In addition, the case has prompted the D.C. council to revisit its regulations on Airbnb and other short‑term rental platforms. Several council members have expressed interest in tightening the definition of a lease, requiring clear occupancy agreements even for short‑term rentals, and enforcing stricter penalties on hosts who do not follow local housing codes.

Bottom Line

The Shadija Romero case illustrates the friction that can arise when the world of short‑term rentals collides with longstanding tenant‑rights legislation. While the homeowner’s perspective focuses on property ownership and the right to control occupancy, the tenant side emphasizes the necessity of legal safeguards for individuals who find themselves living in a home without a formal lease.

With the court’s decision looming, all eyes—both on the local courts and on the city’s Housing Authority—will be on this dispute. Whatever the outcome, it will likely reshape the legal landscape for short‑term rentals in Washington, D.C., and could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled across the United States.