Campbell v. Fort Lincoln New Town Corp.
2012 D.C. App. LEXIS 499
D.C.2012Background
- 1) New Town entered a 1975 Land Disposition Agreement (LDA) with the DC Redevelopment Land Agency to develop Fort Lincoln, including Article VII requiring a Non-Profit Corporation and related obligations.
- 2) The LDA obligated New Town to fund and transfer ownership interests to a nonprofit and to pay a portion of real estate commissions to the nonprofit; it also contemplated enforcement by the District government.
- 3) Condominium purchasers were not disclosed the LDA or Article VII in public offering statements; they sued for Condominium Act violations and related claims.
- 4) In Fort Lincoln I, the court held purchasers could pursue the Condominium Act claim but dismissed contract and most common-law claims, noting plaintiffs could prove damages if proven to be non-speculative.
- 5) On remand, the trial court barred evidence of LDA breach as proof of damages and dismissed the case; on appeal, the DC Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the damages theory based on LDA breach was not precluded and may be proven with reasonable certainty.
- 6) The appellate court remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence of LDA breach to prove damages under the Condominium Act. | Campbell argues LDA breach is relevant to damages and not foreclosed by Fort Lincoln I. | New Town contends damages can only be tied to the Condominium Act, and LDA breach is barred by Fort Lincoln I. | The court erred; LDA breach evidence may be admissible to prove damages under the Condominium Act. |
| Whether the damages theory was too speculative to submit to a jury. | Campbell contends the damages could be proven with reasonable certainty via potential District enforcement. | New Town argues damages cannot be proven with sufficient certainty given speculative enforcement outcomes. | Premature to conclude it is speculative; remand for factual development. |
| Whether the appeal is properly before the court given the dismissal posture. | Campbell asserts exception to estoppel because the ruling effectively dismissed the case. | New Town argues ordinary estoppel applies to voluntary dismissals. | The appeal is proper under the exception for effectively dismantling the plaintiff’s case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fort Lincoln Civic Ass’n, Inc. v. Fort Lincoln New Town Corp., 944 A.2d 1055 (D.C. 2008) (Fort Lincoln I; Condominium Act damages theory not foreclosed on remand; non-enforceability of LDA claims for plaintiffs)
- Solers, Inc. v. Doe, 977 A.2d 941 (D.C. 2009) (trial court’s denial of subpoena enforcement can constitute dismissal for purposes of appellate review)
- Hawthorne v. Canavan, 756 A.2d 397 (D.C. 2000) (damages may be awarded based on just and reasonable estimation where exact certainty is unavailable)
- NCRIC, Inc. v. Columbia Hosp. for Women Med. Ctr., 957 A.2d 890 (D.C. 2008) (damages need not be precise; reasonable estimate acceptable)
- Vossoughi v. District of Columbia, 963 A.2d 1162 (D.C. 2009) (damages may be proven by reasonable inferences; not required to be mathematically precise)