Justia District of Columbia Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Salvador Rivas purchased a condominium unit with a mortgage loan from Flagstar Bank, secured by a deed of trust. Rivas fell behind on his condo association dues, leading the New Hampshire House Condominium Unit Owners Association (NHH) to foreclose on the unit in 2014. The foreclosure sale terms indicated the unit was sold subject to Flagstar’s first deed of trust of approximately $256,632. Advanced Financial Investments, LLC (AFI) bought the unit for $26,000, despite its tax-assessed value of $237,930. Flagstar later filed for judicial foreclosure, claiming its lien was extinguished by NHH’s foreclosure sale.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia dismissed Flagstar’s judicial foreclosure claim, reasoning that the lien was extinguished by the prior foreclosure sale. The court also dismissed Flagstar’s claims for declaratory relief, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment as time-barred, as they were raised for the first time in an amended complaint filed almost four years after the foreclosure sale.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The court agreed with Flagstar that its judicial foreclosure claim was improperly dismissed, as rebuttals to affirmative defenses are not subject to any statute of limitations. However, the court affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the alternative ground that appellees were entitled to summary judgment on the judicial foreclosure claim. The court held that the 2014 foreclosure sale was not unconscionable as a matter of law, given the legal uncertainty at the time regarding whether Flagstar’s lien would survive the sale.The court also rejected Flagstar’s remaining arguments, except for the unjust enrichment claim against AFI. The court found that this claim should not have been dismissed as time-barred and could not be resolved on summary judgment. The case was remanded for trial on the unjust enrichment claim against AFI, while the trial court’s judgment was otherwise affirmed. View "Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Advanced Financial Investments, LLC" on Justia Law

In 1997, a sixteen-year-old, referred to as John Doe, fatally shot his ex-girlfriend and her male companion. He was convicted of first-degree murder while armed, second-degree murder while armed, and two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of seventy-five years to life, later corrected to fifty-five years to life. In 2023, Doe filed a motion under the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act (IRAA) seeking immediate release. The government did not oppose the motion. The trial court found Doe not dangerous and deserving of a sentence reduction but denied immediate release, reducing his sentence by twenty-two years, making him eligible for release in eighteen months.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia held hearings on Doe’s IRAA motion, during which it heard from the parties and the victims' family members. The court found that Doe had met the burden for IRAA relief, determining he was no longer a danger and that the interests of justice warranted a sentence reduction. However, the court proceeded to a "second step" of resentencing, applying an unrelated statute and considering the seriousness of Doe’s offenses, ultimately reducing his sentence but not granting immediate release.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court erred by applying an unrelated statute and considering the seriousness of the offenses as a standalone factor. The IRAA requires the court to consider specific enumerated factors and does not permit a separate resentencing analysis. Despite these errors, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order, concluding that the errors did not cause substantial prejudice to Doe and were therefore harmless. View "Doe v. United States" on Justia Law

Metropolitan Police Department Officer Pablo Rosa conducted a traffic stop of a car driven by Lee R. Carper. When asked for his license and registration, Carper stated he did not need a license and did not have one. An investigator found no DMV records for Carper. Carper argued that the District of Columbia had to prove he did not have a permit from any state, not just the District. The trial court disagreed, finding Carper guilty of operating a motor vehicle without a permit.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia found Carper guilty, concluding that D.C. Code § 50-1401.01(d) prohibits driving without a District-issued permit, and the District proved Carper did not have one. The court also found that D.C. Code § 50-1401.02(a) provides a temporary exemption for non-residents with valid permits from other jurisdictions, which is a defense Carper failed to prove.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The court held that possession of an out-of-jurisdiction permit is a defense, not an element the prosecution must disprove. The court reaffirmed the precedent set in Bush v. District of Columbia, which held that the burden of proving possession of an out-of-jurisdiction permit rests on the defendant. The court also addressed Carper's arguments regarding the trial court's granting of a continuance and denial of a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution, finding no reversible error. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Carper v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Paul Porter applied twice to register a firearm, but the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) denied his applications, citing a previous weapons offense conviction in Maryland. The Maryland records were expunged in 2020, so the full details of the case are not available. However, it is known that Porter pleaded guilty in 2009 to transporting a handgun on a highway, was initially sentenced to three years of incarceration (suspended for probation), and later had his sentence reconsidered to probation before judgment in 2015.Porter sought review of MPD's denial from the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at OAH overturned MPD's decision, reasoning that under Maryland law, a discharged sentence of probation before judgment is not considered a conviction and that failing to recognize this would deny Maryland law full faith and credit.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The court held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel the District to adopt Maryland's interpretation of "conviction" for firearm registration purposes. The court concluded that under District law, a sentence of probation before judgment constitutes a conviction for the purposes of firearm registration. The court emphasized that the legislative intent of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was to restrict firearm possession to individuals without disqualifying offenses, and allowing those with probation before judgment to register firearms would undermine this purpose.The court reversed OAH's order and upheld MPD's denial of Porter's application for a firearm registration certificate, holding that Porter "has been convicted" of a disqualifying offense under D.C. Code § 7-2502.03(a)(2), and that subsequent discharge of probation and expungement do not alter this conclusion. View "District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department v. Porter" on Justia Law

DCA Capitol Hill LTAC, LLC and DCA Capitol Hill SNF, LLC (collectively, “DCA”) leased a property from Capitol Hill Group (“CHG”) in Northeast Washington, DC, to operate a long-term acute care hospital and skilled nursing facility. In 2015, DCA began withholding rent payments, claiming dissatisfaction with CHG’s installation of a new HVAC system and generator. CHG sued for breach of contract, and DCA counterclaimed for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and fraud, alleging misrepresentations by CHG.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to CHG on DCA’s fraud counterclaims related to pre-lease representations, citing the lease’s integration clauses. After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of CHG on its breach-of-contract claim and DCA’s counterclaims, finding that CHG had fulfilled its obligations regarding the HVAC system and generator work. The court also awarded CHG attorneys’ fees based on a provision in the lease.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s rulings. The appellate court held that DCA’s fraud claims related to pre-lease representations failed as a matter of law because DCA’s reliance on the alleged misrepresentations was unreasonable. The court also concluded that CHG had not breached the lease, as the term “new HVAC system” did not include distribution components, and CHG had fulfilled its generator-related obligations by replacing one generator. The court upheld the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees to CHG, finding no abuse of discretion.The case was remanded to the trial court to consider whether to award CHG attorneys’ fees associated with the appeal. View "DCA Capitol Hill LTAC, LLC v. Capitol Hill Group" on Justia Law

Clifton A. Browne was involved in a physical altercation with Luther Brooks in the basement unit of a house owned by Valerie Mann. The altercation began after Browne, who was helping Mann with repairs, confronted Brooks about vacating the unit. During the fight, Browne repeatedly punched Brooks, who later fell and hit his head on concrete. Brooks was taken to the hospital, never regained consciousness, and died from multiple blunt force injuries. Browne was charged with second-degree murder.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia ruled that Browne's prior convictions in Maryland for second-degree assault could be used to impeach his credibility if he testified. Browne objected but chose not to testify. The jury found him not guilty of second-degree murder but guilty of voluntary manslaughter.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. Browne argued that his Maryland convictions should not be used for impeachment because Maryland law does not allow such use for second-degree assault, and the offense is equivalent to simple assault in D.C., which is not impeachable. The court held that under D.C. Code § 14-305(b)(1), the plain language of the statute allows for impeachment with convictions punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, regardless of the jurisdiction's specific rules on impeachment.The court affirmed the Superior Court's ruling, stating that the statute's bright-line rule was intended by Congress to avoid the discretionary approach and that the predictable consequences of this rule do not constitute absurdities. Therefore, Browne's conviction for voluntary manslaughter was affirmed. View "Browne v. United States" on Justia Law

The petitioner, Lin Luo, sought review of a final order from the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) that determined her ineligible for unemployment benefits from April 5, 2023, to June 28, 2023. Luo was terminated from her position at the American Chemical Society (ACS) and received post-termination payments under an Agreement and General Release. The OAH administrative law judge (ALJ) classified these payments as severance pay, which disqualified her from receiving unemployment benefits. Luo argued that the payments were settlement payments for sexual harassment claims, not severance pay.The Department of Employment Services (DOES) initially found Luo ineligible for benefits for a slightly different period. Luo appealed to OAH, where the ALJ held a hearing and excluded Luo's evidence of her harassment claims, citing the parol evidence rule. The ALJ concluded that the Agreement's language unambiguously indicated the payments were severance pay, based on Luo's years of service and lack of advance notice of termination. The ALJ also noted that the Agreement included a release of claims against ACS and found that Luo signed the Agreement without fraud, duress, or mutual mistake.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found that the ALJ erred in not considering parol evidence regarding the nature of the payments. The court noted that the parol evidence rule does not preclude evidence showing that factual recitals in an agreement are untrue. The court concluded that the ALJ should have considered Luo's testimony and evidence about her harassment claims to determine the parties' intent regarding the payments. The court vacated the OAH orders and remanded the case for further proceedings to consider this evidence. View "Luo v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services" on Justia Law

T.B., a juvenile, was adjudged delinquent by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for carrying a pistol without a license and possessing unregistered ammunition. The case arose from two Instagram live videos observed by Officer Moore of the Metropolitan Police Department. In the first video, T.B. was seen displaying a black Glock-style handgun. In the second video, T.B. was seen with a light-colored object in his waistband, which officers believed to be a firearm. When officers arrived at the scene, they found a tan-gold-colored pistol on the ground near where T.B. had been standing.The Superior Court incorporated Officer Moore’s testimony from a suppression hearing into the trial. Officer Moore testified about the events leading to T.B.'s arrest and the officers' observations from the Instagram videos. Officer Laielli also testified, describing T.B.'s behavior in the second video as characteristic of an armed gunman. The court found the evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that T.B. possessed the tan-gold-colored pistol and committed him to the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services for up to one year.On appeal, T.B. argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s findings and that the trial court erred in admitting the officers’ testimony. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found that the evidence, including the Instagram videos and the officers’ observations, was sufficient to support the trial court’s findings. The appellate court also concluded that any error in admitting the officers’ testimony was harmless, as the trial court’s findings were based on its own viewing of the video evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of delinquency. View "In re T.B." on Justia Law

In early September 2023, Niya Ross left her dog, Cinnamon, in her car for over an hour on a hot day. The car was parked in the shade with the windows slightly open. A passerby, Zachary Vasile, heard the dog barking and called emergency services. Responders, including firefighters and an animal control officer, arrived and released the dog from the car. The dog showed no signs of distress according to the animal control officer. Ross was later arrested and charged with animal cruelty.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia found Ross guilty of animal cruelty after a bench trial. The court concluded that Ross knew the potential harm of leaving the dog in the car due to the open windows and the hot weather. The court also noted that expert testimony was not necessary to determine that leaving a dog in a hot car for over an hour constituted a failure to provide proper protection from the weather.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and reversed the conviction. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the dog suffered or would have suffered due to the conditions in the car. The court noted the lack of evidence regarding the actual temperature inside the car and the absence of symptoms of heat-related distress in the dog. The court emphasized that common knowledge and inferences could not substitute for concrete evidence in proving the elements of the crime. The court remanded the case with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal. View "Ross v. United States" on Justia Law

Samuel Murray, a motor-vehicle operator for the District of Columbia Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS), was wrongfully terminated after taking leave due to an injury sustained at work. In September 2020, DYRS was ordered to reinstate Mr. Murray and awarded him back-pay with benefits. Mr. Murray did not initially request interest on the back-pay. In February 2021, he petitioned the Office of Employee Appeals (OEA) to reopen his case for enforcement of the back-pay and benefits, which had not yet been provided, and for the first time sought accrued interest on the back-pay.The OEA Administrative Judge (AJ) ruled that OEA had the authority to award interest on back-pay and ordered DYRS to pay Mr. Murray prejudgment interest. DYRS sought review in the Superior Court, which reversed the AJ's decision, holding that the AJ did not have jurisdiction to grant interest on the back-pay award. The Superior Court reasoned that the AJ's jurisdiction was limited to correcting the record, ruling on attorney fees, or processing enforcement petitions, and Mr. Murray's request for prejudgment interest fell outside these parameters.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. The court held that D.C. Code § 1-606.03(c) clearly precluded Mr. Murray's belated request for prejudgment interest, as it was made over three months after the back-pay award became final and did not fall within the AJ's limited post-award jurisdiction. The court also noted that it did not address whether OEA has the authority to award prejudgment interest when timely requested or whether post-judgment interest could be part of enforcing an award not promptly paid. View "Murray v. District of Columbia Dep't of Youth and Rehabilitation Services" on Justia Law