231 A.3d 416
D.C.2020Background
- Holmes contracted in Sept. 2014 to sell a 16‑unit building to C.A. Harrison but failed to provide tenants the TOPA notice required at that time. He issued a TOPA offer in Sept. 2015 after the delayed discovery of the omission.
- Remaining tenants sought to form and register a tenant association; DHCD initially rejected the registration based on Holmes’s late TOPA mailings but granted reconsideration and registered the association in June 2017.
- In Dec. 2016 Holmes served tenants with notices to vacate, certifying they were for discontinuing housing use (not for effecting a sale), and stating he no longer desired to sell.
- DHCD issued a deficiency letter (Jan. 2017) and then a temporary cease‑and‑desist order (June 2017), explaining Holmes had not provided the separate TOPA offer required before discontinuing housing use.
- Holmes requested an OAH hearing; OAH affirmed DHCD, made the cease‑and‑desist permanent, and enjoined Holmes from selling or discontinuing housing use until TOPA compliance. Holmes appealed both the DHCD registration decision (challenging delay and alleged ex parte contacts) and OAH’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Holmes) | Defendant's Argument (DHCD / Tenants / OAH) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge DHCD’s registration of the tenant association | Holmes: as property owner and party to a sale contract, he was injured by DHCD’s delay/ex parte contacts and thus may appeal the registration | Tenants/DHCD: Holmes never participated in DHCD proceedings; alleged harms are speculative, self‑inflicted, and insufficient to show injury in fact | Court: Holmes lacks standing to challenge the registration; appeal dismissed on standing grounds |
| Whether Holmes’s 2015 TOPA offer (tied to a third‑party sale) satisfied the separate TOPA requirement before discontinuing housing use in 2016 | Holmes: the 2015 TOPA offer related to the C.A. Harrison contract fulfilled his TOPA obligations and obviated the need for a new offer before discontinuance | DHCD/OAH: statute treats third‑party sales and discontinuance as distinct triggers with different pricing, disclosure, and timing rules; a new bona fide offer is required for discontinuance | Court: Affirmed OAH—prior third‑party offer does not satisfy the separate TOPA offer requirement for discontinuing housing use; cease‑and‑desist made permanent |
Key Cases Cited
- D.C. Appleseed Ctr. for Law & Justice, Inc. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Ins., Sec., & Banking, 54 A.3d 1188 (D.C. 2012) (standing requires concrete, particularized, actual or imminent injury)
- Grayson v. AT & T Corp., 15 A.3d 219 (D.C. 2011) (standing is a threshold jurisdictional inquiry)
- Morrison v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co., 25 A.3d 930 (D.C. 2011) (owners must give new TOPA offers for each third‑party contract)
- Peoples Drug Stores, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 470 A.2d 751 (D.C. 1983) (statutory interpretation begins with plain language)
- Richman Towers Tenants’ Ass’n v. Richman Towers LLC, 17 A.3d 590 (D.C. 2011) (ambiguities in TOPA should be resolved to strengthen tenant rights)
- Nunnally v. District of Columbia Metro. Police Dep’t, 80 A.3d 1004 (D.C. 2013) (deference to reasonable agency interpretations)