George C. Papageorge v. Matt Banks
2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 802
| D.C. | 2013Background
- Papageorge sued Matt and Diane Banks alleging Bankses diverted settlement funds and breached a December 9, 2010 Agreement financing Banks’ litigation.
- Papageorge obtained a prejudgment attachment after advising that ESB paid funds that Papageorge claimed under the Agreement.
- Bankses moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing the Agreement was champertous and void.
- The trial court treated the Bankses’ motion as summary judgment and held the Agreement champertous and void.
- Papageorge appealed both the summary judgment and denial of reconsideration.
- Court reverses and remands for further proceedings on whether Papageorge had an independent interest and whether summary judgment was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the December 9, 2010 Agreement champertous? | Papageorge contends the Agreement lacks an independent interest; it seeks a share from Banks’ litigation. | Bankses contend the Agreement is champertous as a profit-for-litigation bargain. | Not dispositive; depends on Papageorge’s independent interest; remand for fact-finding. |
| Did Papageorge have an independent interest (TOPA/possession) to defeats champerty? | Papageorge asserts an independent interest in Banks’s TOPA rights and possessory rights. | Bankses argue no independent interest; any interest is contingent or dependent. | Papageorge could reasonably believe he had an independent interest; remand warranted. |
| Was summary judgment proper given disputed interests and facts? | There are genuine issues of material fact about Papageorge’s interest. | Either lack of independent interest or undisputed champerty supports summary judgment. | Reversed; summary judgment improper, remand for factual development. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshall v. Bickel, 445 A.2d 606 (D.C. 1982) (establishes three elements of champerty; funding the suit for a share in recovery)
- Allman v. Snyder, 888 A.2d 1161 (D.C. 2005) (TOPA rights and tenancy status considerations in assignment context)
- Banks v. ESB, 8 A.3d 1239 (D.C. 2010) (foundation for Banks’ possessory and TOPA rights dispute with ESB)
- Smith v. Hartsell, 63 S.E. 172 (N.C. 1908) (recognizes interest sufficient to avoid officious intermeddler theory)
- Thallhimer v. Brinckerhoff, 3 Cow. 623 (N.Y. 1824) (earlyChamperty exception for interested claimants)
- Van Wyck, 4 App. D.C. 294 (D.C. Cir. 1894) (discusses maintenance/champerty elements)