Berlin v. Renaissance Rental Partners, LLC
723 F.3d 119
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Berlin contracted to purchase a condo unit on the 16th floor of The Residence at The Ritz-Carlton, White Plains, before completion.
- Berlin demanded a full refund of the $167,625 deposit after asserting Renaissance failed to provide a printed property report as required by ISLA § 1703(a)(1)(B).
- Berlin sued Renaissance under ISLA § 1709 for violation of § 1703(a).
- The district court granted Berlin summary judgment, relying on the CFPB/HUD interpretation that a condo unit in a multi-story building can be a “lot.”
- The CFPB participated as amicus; HUD’s 1973 rule and 1974 guidance supported application to high-rise condominiums; the court also awarded attorneys’ fees to Berlin.
- Chief Judge Jacobs dissented on the fees issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a single-floor condo unit in a multi-story building is a “lot” under ISLA. | Berlin argues exclusive use of the unit constitutes exclusive use of land. | Renaissance contends the unit is not a lot because it lacks exclusive land use. | Yes; the court defers to agency interpretation and holds unit is a lot. |
| Whether the district court properly awarded attorneys’ fees under ISLA. | Berlin contends fees are appropriate for prevailing on ISLA claims. | Renaissance argues the award was improper or excessive. | Yes; the district court acted within its discretion in awarding fees. |
| Whether appellate jurisdiction exists to review the fee award given a premature notice of appeal. | Renaissance argues the appeal on fees is premature. | Berlin contends the appeal is timely due to later final judgment on fees. | Appellate jurisdiction exists; premature notice ripened after final costs judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bacolitsas v. 86th & 3rd Owner, LLC, 702 F.3d 673 (2d Cir. 2012) (ILSA and condo/unit treatment; agency interpretation vindicated)
- Winter v. Hollingsworth Props., Inc., 777 F.2d 1444 (11th Cir. 1985) (condominium units treated as lots under ILSA; land/realty interpretation robust)
- Becherer v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 127 F.3d 478 (6th Cir. 1997) (condominium units recognized as lots under ILSA)
- Decker v. Northwest Env’tal Def. Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 1326 (S. Ct. 2013) (agency interpretations receive deference unless plainly erroneous)
- Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (Sup. Ct. 2005) (fee-shifting discretion standard for attorneys’ fees)
- O&G Indus., Inc. v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 537 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for fee awards)