Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Ms. Wilson owned a property in the District of Columbia, which she subdivided into three lots: 825, 826, and 827. She sold Lot 826 to Ntaky Management in 2009 and Lot 825 to Ms. Lumbih in 2010. The deed for Lot 826 described it as measuring twenty feet by forty feet, while the deed for Lot 825 described it as thirty-eight feet in length, based on an informal survey by Vyfhuis & Associates. This created a disputed area of eight feet between the properties. Ms. Lumbih installed an HVAC unit and deck in this disputed area. In 2018, Ntaky asked Ms. Lumbih to remove these installations, but she did not comply, leading Ntaky to sue her.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia held a non-jury trial and ruled that Ntaky owned the disputed area and could remove the encroachments at Ms. Lumbih’s expense. The court also denied Ms. Lumbih’s breach-of-contract claim against Ms. Wilson and her claim for implied indemnity, which sought to hold Ms. Wilson responsible for the costs associated with removing the encroachments.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The court upheld the trial court’s decision regarding Ntaky’s ownership of the disputed area and the removal of the encroachments. However, it vacated the denial of Ms. Lumbih’s breach-of-contract claim against Ms. Wilson, finding that the trial court did not address whether Ms. Wilson breached her duty to convey a property thirty-eight feet in length. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this issue. The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Ms. Lumbih’s claim for implied indemnity, as she failed to identify a non-contractual duty of care owed by Ms. Wilson. View "Lumbih v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Sarah Staab purchased a condominium unit at a foreclosure sale conducted by the condominium association to recover unpaid fees. She later challenged two Superior Court orders that ruled the sale of the unit to her was barred by the Federal Foreclosure Bar, 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3), and thus void, and granted summary judgment to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. on its claims for judicial foreclosure, declaratory judgment, and quiet title. Staab did not contest that the property was encumbered by a deed of trust owned by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and serviced by Wells Fargo, nor did she dispute the application of the Federal Foreclosure Bar. Instead, she raised three procedural arguments.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia initially ruled in favor of Wells Fargo, determining that the bank's claims were timely, the foreclosure and sale of the property to Staab were void under the Federal Foreclosure Bar, and the condominium association was not an indispensable party. Staab argued that the court applied the incorrect statute of limitations, abused its discretion by allowing Wells Fargo to amend its complaint years after filing, and erred by not joining the condominium association as an indispensable party.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. The court held that Wells Fargo's initial action for judicial foreclosure was timely and that the additional facts and arguments raised in the amended complaint were in direct response to Staab's affirmative defense. The court also concluded that any error in granting Wells Fargo leave to amend its complaint was harmless, as the bank could have raised the same arguments at the summary judgment stage. Finally, the court determined that the condominium association was not an essential party under Super. Ct. Civ. R. 19(a)(1), as the court could grant complete relief without its involvement. View "Staab v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the title of a condominium unit that was foreclosed upon twice by different lien holders. Wonder Twins Holdings, LLC purchased the property at the first foreclosure sale conducted by the condominium association to recover unpaid assessments. Later, 450101 DC Housing Trust purchased the property at a second foreclosure sale conducted by the mortgage lender. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to DC Housing Trust, ruling that the mortgage had been recorded earlier than the Trustee’s Deed received by Wonder Twins.The Superior Court's decision was based on the premise that the mortgage had priority over the condominium association's lien. The court did not consider the super-priority lien created by D.C. Code § 42-1903.13(a)(2), which gives the condominium association a priority lien for the most recent six months of unpaid assessments. The court also noted that the foreclosure sale was advertised as subject to any prior liens, which it interpreted as preserving the mortgage lender's priority.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and reaffirmed its previous holdings that the most recent six months of unpaid condominium assessments constitute a super-priority lien. This lien, when foreclosed upon, extinguishes any deed of trust, regardless of the terms of the sale. However, the court also recognized that a 2017 amendment to the Condominium Act requires that if a condominium association forecloses on more than the six-month super-priority lien, the first deed of trust must be preserved.The Court of Appeals found that the record did not clarify whether the condominium association foreclosed only on its super-priority lien or on a split lien. Therefore, it reversed the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the exact nature of the foreclosure and the resulting priority of the liens. View "Wonder Twins Holdings, LLC v. 450101 DC Housing Trust" on Justia Law

In 2021, the appellee purchased a condominium unit at a foreclosure auction and later filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to quiet title against Jose Strickland. The complaint was amended to include Plus Properties, LLC, and later Plus Properties Trust as defendants. The docket indicated service was directed to Plus Properties Trust, but no affidavit of service was filed. Plus Properties Trust, represented by Kellee Baker, moved to dismiss some claims but did not allege insufficient service of process. The trial court granted partial dismissal, requiring a responsive pleading by October 4, 2022, which Plus Properties Trust failed to file.The trial court entered default against Plus Properties Trust and scheduled an ex parte proof hearing. Despite being served with notice of the hearing and subsequent motions, Plus Properties Trust did not respond. The court granted default judgment, quieting title in the appellee's name and issuing a preliminary injunction against Plus Properties Trust. Plus Properties Trust, with new counsel, filed two Rule 60(b) motions to vacate the default judgment, arguing lack of notice and ineffective service of process. Both motions were denied by the trial court.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The court held that Plus Properties Trust failed to preserve its claim of ineffective service of process by not raising it in the trial court. The court also found that Plus Properties Trust had sufficient notice of the default proceedings and the ex parte proof hearing, as evidenced by the certificates of service. The court concluded that the default judgment did not violate due process and affirmed the trial court's orders denying the Rule 60(b) motions. View "Plus Properties Trust v. Molinuevo Then" on Justia Law

Debra Stevenson and Eugene Smith co-own a property for which Stevenson initially took out a loan from Wells Fargo. After defaulting, she refinanced with Fremont Investment & Loan, which paid off the Wells Fargo loan. Stevenson defaulted again and filed for bankruptcy. HSBC Bank, as Fremont's successor, sought to enforce its interest in the property through equitable subrogation, claiming the right to stand in Wells Fargo's position.In bankruptcy court, HSBC was found to be the holder of the note and entitled to equitable subrogation for the amount used to pay off the Wells Fargo loan. The federal district court adopted this decision, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding that HSBC could enforce its interest despite Fremont's knowledge of Smith's co-ownership and refusal to sign the loan documents.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment to HSBC. The court held that Stevenson and Smith were collaterally estopped from relitigating issues decided in federal court, including HSBC's standing and entitlement to equitable subrogation. The court also rejected their Truth in Lending Act (TILA) rescission argument, as it had been previously litigated and decided against them. The court affirmed the Superior Court's ruling, finding no genuine issues of material fact and that HSBC was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Stevenson v. HSBC Bank USA" on Justia Law

Corey Nelson-White was barred from Rhode Island Row, a mixed-use development in Northeast D.C., which includes two buildings at 2300 and 2350 Washington Place NE. The barring notice directed him to stay off the property and grounds of Rhode Island Row. Officers explained the barring notice to Nelson-White, but did not provide him with a copy. Six days later, Nelson-White was found inside a parking garage attached to one of the Rhode Island Row buildings and was arrested for unlawful entry.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia convicted Nelson-White of unlawful entry, finding that he knew or should have known he was barred from the premises, including the parking garage. The trial court based its decision on the barring notice and the officers' instructions, despite Nelson-White's argument that the garage was not clearly marked as part of Rhode Island Row.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found the evidence insufficient to sustain Nelson-White's conviction. The court noted that there was no clear indication that the parking garage was part of the barred premises. The court highlighted the lack of signage or other markers that would inform a reasonable person that the garage was part of Rhode Island Row or 2350 Washington Place. The court concluded that a rational fact-finder could not determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Nelson-White knew or should have known the garage was included in the barring notice.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed Nelson-White's conviction for unlawful entry, holding that the evidence did not support the conclusion that he was aware or should have been aware that the parking garage was part of the premises he was barred from entering. View "Nelson-White v. United States" on Justia Law

Karen Richardson obtained a loan in 2008, secured by a promissory note and a deed of trust on her home. After a series of transfers, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC became the holder and servicer of the note. Nationstar appointed members of McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC (MWC) as substitute trustees. In 2015, Nationstar filed for judicial foreclosure, alleging Richardson defaulted on her mortgage. Richardson counterclaimed, challenging Nationstar's standing and alleging violations of lending laws. The Superior Court ruled in favor of Nationstar, and the property was sold in a foreclosure sale.Richardson opposed the ratification of the sale, arguing that Nationstar and MWC provided an incorrect payoff amount, constituting fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. The Superior Court ratified the sale, concluding that Richardson's right to cure the default had expired before the incorrect payoff amount was provided. Richardson's subsequent appeals were dismissed as moot.Richardson then filed a new suit against Nationstar, MWC, and the trustees, alleging wrongful foreclosure, fraud, and misrepresentation. The Superior Court dismissed her claims against Nationstar and others as barred by res judicata, but held her claims against MWC and the trustees in abeyance. Richardson amended her complaint, and the Superior Court dismissed it again on res judicata grounds, believing she had not disputed privity.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and reversed the Superior Court's dismissal on the issue of privity. The court held that MWC and the trustees had not sufficiently demonstrated privity with Nationstar to invoke res judicata. The case was remanded for further proceedings to address the privity issue and any other unresolved claims. View "Richardson v. McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC" on Justia Law

Nine Black, female, low- to moderate-income first-time homebuyers purchased condominium units at the RiverEast at Grandview Condominium complex through the District of Columbia’s Housing Purchase Assistance Program. Shortly after moving in, they encountered severe habitability issues, including foundation problems, sewage, and mold. Their attempts to resolve these issues were unsuccessful, leading them to file a thirteen-count lawsuit against the developers, the District of Columbia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), and the RiverEast at Grandview Condominium Owner’s Association. The developers later filed for bankruptcy, and the plaintiffs were forced to evacuate their units.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia granted motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims against the District and the Association for failure to state a claim. The court found that DHCD, as a District agency, was non sui juris and thus incapable of being sued. It also concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) because the District could not be considered a “merchant” under the statute. The court dismissed other claims, including violations of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA), breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and negligence.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the CPPA claim, holding that the District could be considered a merchant under the statute. The case was remanded for further consideration of whether the District’s trade practices were unfair or deceptive. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the DCHRA, breach of contract, IIED, and negligence claims, finding that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege facts to support these claims. The court also upheld the trial court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ request to amend their complaint. View "May v. River East at Grandview" on Justia Law