Justia District of Columbia Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Dennis Neal, a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning technician at Howard University Hospital, was injured on the job when a ladder gave way beneath him. He experienced pain and underwent spinal surgery. After attempting to return to work and experiencing further pain, he quit and sought reinstatement of his disability benefits and vocational rehabilitation services. The hospital terminated his benefits when he accepted new employment but quit after four days due to physical discomfort from long drives and job duties.An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted Neal's claim for reinstatement of benefits and services, and the Compensation Review Board (CRB) affirmed. The hospital appealed, arguing that the CRB lacked substantial evidence to support its findings that Neal did not voluntarily limit his income and did not fail to cooperate with vocational rehabilitation. The hospital contended that the ALJ and CRB ignored critical testimony from witnesses.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found that the CRB's decision was supported by substantial evidence. The court noted that the ALJ's findings were based on credible evidence, including medical evaluations and Neal's testimony about his physical limitations and the nature of the job duties at his new employment. The court also found that Neal had cooperated with vocational rehabilitation services and had demonstrated a willingness to continue doing so.The court held that the CRB's decision flowed rationally from the facts and was supported by substantial evidence. The court affirmed the CRB's decision to reinstate Neal's temporary total disability benefits and vocational rehabilitation services. View "Howard University Hospital v. D.C. Department of Employment Services" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant, Mr. McClam, was charged with first-degree premeditated murder while armed and two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed (AWIKWA) following two shootings that occurred within seconds of each other. The first shooting involved Mr. McClam firing at a car as it drove away, and the second shooting occurred shortly after when the car circled back. One of the bullets from these shootings killed an eleven-year-old boy, K.B., who was in the car.At trial, the United States presented the case to the jury on the theory that the fatal shot was fired during the first shooting, while the shots giving rise to the AWIKWA charges were fired during the second shooting. The jury found Mr. McClam not guilty of first-degree premeditated murder and could not reach a unanimous verdict on the lesser-included homicide charges and the AWIKWA charges. Before the retrial, Mr. McClam moved to bar the United States from proceeding on the theories that the shots giving rise to the AWIKWA charges were fired during the first shooting and that the fatal shots were fired during the second shooting. The trial court denied this motion.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes the United States from arguing at retrial that the fatal shot was fired during the second shooting, as the United States had elected to proceed at the first trial solely on the theory that the fatal shot was fired during the first shooting. The court also accepted the United States' concession that the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes arguing that the shots giving rise to the AWIKWA charges were fired during the first shooting. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "McClam v. United States" on Justia Law

Matthew A. LeFande, a suspended member of the District of Columbia Bar, was found by the Board on Professional Responsibility to have committed seven violations of the District of Columbia and Maryland Rules of Professional Responsibility. These violations stemmed from his involvement in several legal matters, including the District Title litigation, the Warren bankruptcy matter, the Carvalho bankruptcy matter, and his own personal bankruptcy. LeFande's misconduct included orchestrating a transfer of funds to conceal assets, filing frivolous bankruptcy petitions, making false statements to tribunals, and failing to comply with court orders.In the District Title litigation, LeFande represented Anita Warren and her son, Timothy Day, after District Title erroneously wired funds to Warren. LeFande directed the transfer of $82,051.81 to a New Zealand bank account, which was seen as an attempt to conceal assets. He later refused to comply with court orders to sit for a deposition, resulting in criminal and civil contempt findings. In the Warren bankruptcy matter, LeFande filed a petition to avoid deposition, which was deemed frivolous, leading to sanctions. In the Carvalho bankruptcy matter, LeFande's actions were found to be in bad faith, resulting in sanctions for frivolous filings and misrepresentations.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and agreed with the Board's findings of misconduct. The court noted that LeFande's actions were part of a prolonged pattern of dishonesty and interference with the administration of justice. Given the severity and persistence of his misconduct, along with his lack of remorse and failure to participate in the disciplinary process, the court concluded that disbarment was the appropriate sanction. The court ordered that Matthew A. LeFande be disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. View "In re LeFande" on Justia Law

Jacqueline Martin and Herbert McCray were in a romantic relationship for over four decades until Jacqueline's death in 2020. Jacqueline died without a will, and Herbert sought to administer and inherit her estate, claiming they were common law married. Herbert died before the matter was resolved, and his son, Brian McCray, sought to continue Herbert's claim. Jacqueline's first cousin, Juanita Waller, contested this, arguing that Jacqueline and Herbert were not common law married and that she was the next of kin.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Probate Division, appointed Juanita as the personal representative of Jacqueline's estate, concluding that Juanita had priority over Brian. The court then held a trial to determine if Jacqueline and Herbert were common law married. The trial court limited the evidence to direct proof of an express mutual agreement in the present tense to be permanent partners. The court ruled in favor of Juanita, finding no such express mutual agreement.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court erred by precluding Brian from introducing circumstantial evidence that could infer an express mutual agreement. The appellate court noted that when neither partner is available to testify, such an agreement may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the couple’s relationship, including their cohabitation and reputation in the community. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, allowing Brian to present relevant circumstantial evidence. The appellate court affirmed the appointment of Juanita as the personal representative of Jacqueline's estate. View "In re Estate of Martin" on Justia Law

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

Rodney Hill Alleyne was involved in a road rage incident where, after a car crash caused by his aggressive driving, he pulled the other driver, Henry Steven Romero-Guardado, out of his car and took his wallet. Alleyne then left the scene without returning the wallet. He was convicted of robbery under D.C. Code § 22-2801.In the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Alleyne was found guilty of robbery. He argued on appeal that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that he must have intended to permanently deprive Romero-Guardado of his wallet and that such intent must have existed at the moment he took the wallet. He also contended that the government provided insufficient evidence of his intent to steal the wallet.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that Alleyne intended to return the wallet only upon the satisfaction of a condition, which satisfies the intent element for robbery. The court also found that the trial court's instructions sufficiently informed the jury of the concurrence requirement, meaning Alleyne did not suffer harm to his substantial rights. Additionally, the court concluded that any error in the trial court’s instructions regarding the duration of the intent to deprive did not affect Alleyne’s substantial rights.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed Alleyne’s conviction for robbery. View "Alleyne v. United States" on Justia Law

Innovative Institute, Inc., a postsecondary institution offering nursing assistant and home-health training programs, sought renewal of its temporary operating license from the District of Columbia Higher Education Licensure Commission. Innovative submitted a license renewal application and supplemental documents over several months. After an evidentiary hearing, the Commission denied the application, citing deficiencies such as failure to pay all applicable fees, provide updated curriculum and course syllabi, and maintain adequate student records, including immunization documentation and grade reports. Innovative had not been in good standing with the Commission for five consecutive years.The Commission's decision was reviewed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The court found that substantial evidence supported the Commission's decision. The court noted that Innovative's application was incomplete because it failed to include a $500 late fee, as required by 5A D.C.M.R. § 8122.2(d). Additionally, the court found that Innovative failed to maintain adequate student records, including grade reports and immunization documentation, as required by 5A D.C.M.R. §§ 8111 and 8117. The court also found that Innovative failed to include updated curriculum and course syllabi in its application, as required by 5A D.C.M.R. §§ 8110 and 8116.1(l).The court rejected Innovative's arguments that the Commission's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, that the Hearing Officer improperly excluded admissible evidence, that Innovative had deficient notice of the second ground for denial, and that the Commission's control over the selection of the Hearing Officer conflicted with the federal Administrative Procedure Act. The court affirmed the Commission's decision and order denying Innovative's license renewal application. View "Innovative Institute v. DC Office of State Superintendent of Education" 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

Leroy Williams, a special police officer with the D.C. Department of General Services (DGS), was terminated in August 2019 for conduct related to unauthorized traffic stops. He was given three options to appeal: filing an appeal with the Office of Employee Appeals, having his union (Fraternal Order of Police, FOP) file a grievance, or filing a grievance personally. Williams chose the second option, and FOP filed a grievance on his behalf. When the grievance could not be settled, it was advanced to arbitration, where the arbitrator upheld Williams's termination.FOP then sought review from the Public Employee Relations Board (PERB), which upheld the arbitrator's decision. FOP subsequently petitioned the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for review, which affirmed PERB's decision. After FOP's counsel withdrew, Williams filed an appeal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on his own.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed whether Williams had standing to bring the appeal. The court noted that the collective bargaining agreement granted the union the sole authority to arbitrate grievances and, consequently, the sole authority to appeal arbitration decisions. The court found that Williams lacked standing to appeal because only the union could pursue such an appeal unless the union breached its duty of fair representation, which was not argued in this case.The court dismissed Williams's appeal for lack of standing, concluding that he could not independently challenge the arbitration award under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. View "Williams v. Department of General Services" on Justia Law