Justia District of Columbia Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

Douglass Sloan provided a $60,000 short-term loan to Carlos Allen for property rehabilitation, with a 60-day term and a 20% fixed return rate. If unpaid within 60 days, the loan accrued an additional 2% every subsequent 60 days. The loan was subject to the maximum interest rate allowed by D.C. law if not repaid within 60 days. Sloan sought to collect the debt, leading to a dispute over whether the loan's interest rate was usurious, as D.C. law caps interest rates at 24% per annum.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia initially ruled that Allen had waived his usury defense by not raising it for nearly seven years. The court awarded Sloan $256,946.46 plus $97,450 in attorney’s fees and costs. On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals upheld the attorney’s fees but remanded the case for reconsideration of the usury defense waiver. The trial court then found no substantial prejudice to Sloan from Allen’s delay and ruled the loan usurious, reducing the award to $39,026.46, the remaining principal, plus the affirmed attorney’s fees.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case again. It upheld the trial court’s findings that Allen had not waived his usury defense and that the loan was usurious, as it effectively charged a 34.7% interest rate in its first year. The court rejected Sloan’s arguments against these findings but agreed that Sloan was entitled to post-judgment interest on the award from the date of the initial October 2020 judgment. The court also dismissed Allen’s cross-appeal, which challenged the validity of the loan and the attorney’s fees, as these issues had been resolved in a prior decision. The case was remanded for the imposition of post-judgment interest on the $39,026.46 award. View "Sloan v. Allen" 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

The case involves a dispute between a condominium unit owners association and certain individual unit owners against the developers of the condominium and the unit owners association of a neighboring condominium. The plaintiffs alleged that the developers violated statutory disclosure requirements and committed fraud by failing to inform them of amendments to the condominium bylaws that imposed restrictions for the benefit of the neighboring condominium. They sought a declaratory judgment that the bylaw amendments were void.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court ruled that the plaintiffs' common law fraud claims were barred by a contractual provision requiring such claims to be asserted within one year of closing. The court also found that the plaintiffs were on constructive notice of the bylaw amendments and failed to demonstrate damages beyond the statutory violation for their claims under the Condominium Act. The court upheld the bylaw amendments, finding they did not violate the Condominium Act and were binding on the plaintiffs.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's decision. The appellate court held that the one-year contractual limitation period applied to all claims against the developers, including statutory claims under the Condominium Act and the Consumer Protection Procedures Act. The court also found that the bylaw amendments did not violate the Condominium Act, as they were adopted by the declarant when it was the sole unit owner and were necessary to settle litigation with the neighboring condominium. The court concluded that the restrictions in the amended bylaws were reasonable and served a legitimate interest. View "Unit Owners Ass'n of 2337 Champlain St. Condo., et al. v. 2337 Champlain St., LLC, et al." on Justia Law