Farris v. District of Columbia, 257 A.3d 509

Farris owns an end-unit rowhouse abutting a D.C.-owned alley that he says long drained into his basement.
Beginning in 1985 and repeatedly thereafter (1991, 1992, 1999, 2002) Farris sent letters complaining about seepage; none alleged structural damage; District did not respond.
In 2002 Farris had steel bracing installed; a 2008 structural inspection found the foundation wall had already failed and needed reconstruction.
On December 24, 2015 the foundation wall "imploded." Farris sent a January 2016 letter to the Mayor notifying the District and attaching earlier letters.
The District inspected, told Farris homeowners must maintain foundations, sought to repair but Farris refused entry; he later asserted a negligence counterclaim and sought to amend to add takings claims (§1983 and inverse condemnation).
The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the District on negligence because Farris failed to give timely pre-suit notice under D.C. Code § 12-309(a), and denied leave to add takings claims as legally insufficient; the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Farris)	Defendant's Argument (District)	Held
Whether Farris gave timely written notice under D.C. Code § 12-309(a)	The compensable "damage" was the 2015 implosion; his Jan 2016 letter was within six months and thus timely	Farris knew of the harmful conditions long before 2015 (at least by 2008, and of seepage since 1980); notice was required within six months of when the injury was sustained	Held: Notice untimely. Farris knew of the structural damage by 2008 (at latest); §12-309(a) barred the negligence claim
Whether proposed Takings Clause claims (physical taking/inverse condemnation and §1983) were legally sufficient	The alley’s grading, drainage, and maintenance (government action/decision) caused flooding and a physical invasion amounting to a taking	Takings liability requires affirmative government action causing the invasion; mere failure to maintain (inaction) cannot support a Fifth Amendment taking	Held: Denial of leave to amend affirmed. Proposed takings counts were futile because they alleged government omission, not an affirmative act sufficient to state a taking

Ark. Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (2012) (flooding caused by affirmative release of water can be a temporary physical taking)
St. Bernard Parish Gov’t v. United States, 887 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (takings liability in flooding cases generally requires affirmative government acts; failures to maintain are not takings)
District of Columbia v. Ross, 697 A.2d 14 (D.C. 1997) (§ 12-309’s six-month period is triggered by claimant’s knowledge of injury; doubts resolved in favor of earlier notice)
Brown v. District of Columbia, 853 A.2d 733 (D.C. 2004) (§ 12-309 construed narrowly against claimants; notice requirement not a statute of limitations)
Barnhardt v. District of Columbia, 8 A.3d 1206 (D.C. 2010) (knowledge-based triggering of § 12-309 notice obligation)
Tucci v. District of Columbia, 956 A.2d 684 (D.C. 2008) (explaining purposes of § 12-309 notice requirement)
Beard v. Edmondson & Gallagher, 790 A.2d 541 (D.C. 2002) (continuing tort doctrine in limitations context; discussed by concurrence)
Potomac Dev. Corp. v. District of Columbia, 28 A.3d 531 (D.C. 2011) (definition and contours of inverse condemnation)