Adkins Ltd. Partnership v. O St. Management, LLC, 278 A.3d 106

In 2001 Adkins Limited Partnership and O Street Management (OSM) formed O Street Roadside, LLC; Adkins contributed property and held 75% ownership, OSM 25%.
A buyout provision in the operating agreement was triggered after an Adkins partner died and another became incapacitated, allowing OSM to purchase Adkins’ interest at fair-market value with installment terms.
Appraisers were far apart ($22 million v. $721,000); a third appraiser (directed to treat the interest as a leased-fee) produced $660,889, making $721,000 the median buyout price; the Superior Court confirmed that figure and ordered settlement, which this court later affirmed (Adkins II).
OSM did not complete the buyout (it deposited funds in the registry then later refused to pay; offered a lesser amount and raised setoff/legal-fee claims); Adkins recorded the 2012 order in 2018 and sued to enforce it as a money judgment under D.C. Code § 15-101.
The Superior Court dismissed, holding the 2012 order was not a “final judgment or final decree for the payment of money” under § 15-101 (and alternatively that a contract claim would be time-barred); Adkins appealed only the § 15-101 ruling and asserted a Takings Clause alternative.
The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed: the 2012 order did not direct payment and thus was not enforceable as a recorded money judgment; the Takings Clause claim also fails.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2012 order is a "final judgment or final decree for the payment of money" under D.C. Code § 15-101	The order fixed a $721,000 buyout price and, once recorded, should be enforceable as a money judgment and lien	The order merely confirmed a valuation and ordered settlement contingent on both parties' performance; it contains no directive to pay and thus is not a § 15-101 money judgment	Not a § 15-101 money judgment; order did not command payment or create a clear, recordable money liability; dismissal affirmed
Whether refusal to enforce the 2012 order effects a judicial taking under the Fifth Amendment	Failure to enforce the buyout order deprived Adkins of its 75% interest without just compensation	Adkins has not been divested by any court order; any loss arises from private-contract disputes and OSM's refusal to pay, not a government taking	Takings claim fails: no court-ordered divestiture for public use and enforcement here involved private contractual rights; affirmed

Adkins Ltd. P’ship v. O St. Mgmt., 56 A.3d 1159 (D.C. 2012) (affirming valuation and buyout-process rulings)
Robinson v. Georgetown Court Condominium, LLC, 39 A.3d 1286 (D.C. 2012) (recorded entry was an enforceable money judgment under § 15-101 where it plainly stated amount and party liable)
Boyd v. Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, 164 A.3d 72 (D.C. 2017) (standard of review for dismissal)
Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 560 U.S. 702 (2010) (judicial takings principles and limits)
Bolden v. Bolden, 376 A.2d 430 (D.C. 1977) (contempt may enforce court-directed settlement obligations)
Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381 (1978) (Rule 58 separate-document timing does not control what may constitute an enforceable judgment)