Banks v. Eastern Savings Bank
2010 D.C. App. LEXIS 675
| D.C. | 2010Background
- Banks, a basement tenant, held a lease with Pappas; ESB foreclosed on the property and purchased it in 2001; Banks remained as a tenant after foreclosure as a tenancy at will; ESB sought possession and served a Notice to Vacate to Banks in 2006 with a copy to the Rent Administrator nine days after service; the trial court granted a nonredeemable judgment for possession and Banks appealed.
- Kebede, the upstairs tenant, held a pre-foreclosure lease that purportedly assigned upstairs rights; that assignment was later deemed invalid; Banks sought to intervene in Kebede’s eviction action but was denied.
- ESB classified the property as a single-family dwelling, affecting tenancy status; Lis pendens filed by Banks in 2008 sought to reserve possession rights but was ordered released.
- The key issues revolve around (1) proper service of eviction notices under DCMR regulations, (2) the effect of foreclosure on pre-foreclosure leases, (3) the propriety of lis pendens in light of tenancy interests, and (4) Banks’ ability to intervene in the Kebede eviction action.
- The court ultimately reversed the possession judgment on the notice defect, held that Banks became a tenancy at will post-foreclosure, reversed the lis pendens removal, and affirmed the denial of Banks’ intervention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ESB’s Notice to Quit complied with 14 DCMR § 4300.1 | Banks: late notice to Rent Administrator invalidates eviction | ESB: late service not jurisdictional, but still valid | Defective notice; reverse judgment for possession |
| Effect of foreclosure on pre-foreclosure lease terms | Banks: pre-foreclosure lease terms survive | ESB: foreclosure extinguishes subordinate leases | Lease extinguished; Banks tenants at will; eviction not based on pre-foreclosure lease |
| Properness of lis pendens given tenancy at will | Banks: lis pendens valid to protect rights | ESB: lis pendens improper for tenancy at will | Lis pendens valid as tenancy at will is an interest in real property; reversal of removal order |
| Banks’ right to intervene in Kebede eviction action | Banks: has assignment interest | Kebede’s assignment invalid; Banks lacks interest | Intervention denied; Banks lacked enforceable interest after foreclosure |
| Overall court approach to post-foreclosure tenancy and related remedies | Banks: seeks protection of tenant rights post-foreclosure | ESB: rights constrained by foreclosure law | Judgments reversed/remanded on notice and lis pendens; intervention affirmed/denied as described |
Key Cases Cited
- Valentine, Administrator of Veterans Affairs v. Valentine, 490 A.2d 1165 (D.C. 1985) (eviction protections after foreclosure; tenant rights)
- Merriweather v. D.C. Bldg. Corp., 494 A.2d 1276 (D.C. 1985) (tenants remain after foreclosure; leases not enforceable)
- Molla v. Sanders, 981 A.2d 1197 (D.C. 2009) (foreclosure extinguishes subordinate leases; tenant becomes at will)
- Pappas v. Eastern Sav. Bank, FSB, 911 A.2d 1230 (D.C. 2006) (foreclosure proceedings; effect on landlord-tenant relations)
- Keroes v. Westchester Apartments, 36 A.2d 263 (D.C. 1944) (tenancy at will cannot be freely assigned; assignments scrutinized)
- Comedy v. Vito, 492 A.2d 276 (D.C. 1985) (tenancy at will subletting/assignment considerations)
- 1st Atlantic Guar. Corp. v. Tillerson, 916 A.2d 153 (D.C. 2007) (lis pendens concerning tenancy interests; public policy to disclose litigations)
- Ayers v. Landow, 666 A.2d 51 (D.C. 1995) (strict construction of service requirements in eviction context)