Paul Bloom v. Robert Beam
99 A.3d 263
D.C.2014Background
- Bloom, owner below Beam, filed a nuisance suit against Beam over noise from Beam's flooring.
- Bloom recorded a lis pendens asserting or seeking an interest in Beam's property, triggering a sale delay.
- Beam counterclaimed for slander of title and sought dismissal of the lis pendens and sanctions, plus punitive damages.
- Trial occurred April 11, 2011; the jury rejected Bloom's nuisance claim and awarded Beam special damages for maintenance due to the lis pendens.
- The court later awarded sanctions against Bloom under DC Code § 42-1207(d) and entered judgment against Bloom; Bloom appealed and Beam cross-appealed on punitive damages.
- The appeal confronts whether the lis pendens was absolutely privileged, whether the lis pendens could support slander of title, whether sanctions were proper, and whether punitive damages should be considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the lis pendens absolutely privileged and thus immune from slander claim? | Bloom argued lis pendens privilege barred slander claim. | Beam argued no absolute privilege; lis pendens could support slander of title if false. | Waived privilege issue; no reversible error in denial of privilege avoidance; lis pendens not privileged as a basis for slander claim. |
| Is the lis pendens statement false for purposes of slander of title? | Bloom claimed lis pendens was true and not falsifiable. | Beam argued lis pendens reflects the underlying suit and could be false if the action could not affect title. | Remanded to vacate slander verdict; lis pendens cannot be false merely because underlying claim lacks merit; but the court found the specific theory of constructive easement insufficient to prove falsity. |
| Were sanctions under DC Code § 42-1207(d) appropriate and properly calculated? | Bloom contends sanctions were improper or excessive. | Beam asserted sanctions were appropriate for frivolous lis pendens. | Sanctions upheld as appropriate; remand to reconsider amount in light of vacatur of slander verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Juvenalis v. District of Columbia, 955 A.2d 187 (D.C. 2008) (strict handling of grounds in directed verdict motions)
- Daka, Inc. v. McCrae, 839 A.2d 682 (D.C. 2003) (failure to raise privilege grounds waives later review)
- Howard Univ. v. Best, 547 A.2d 144 (D.C. 1988) (strict construction of motions for judgment)
- McAteer v. Lauterbach, 908 A.2d 1168 (D.C. 2006) (lis pendens validity not dependent on merits of underlying case)
- Gray v. Washington, 612 A.2d 839 (D.C. 1992) (sanctions standards under lis pendens statute)
- Peddlers Square, Inc. v. Scheuermann, 766 A.2d 551 (D.C. 2001) (sanctions for filing frivolous lis pendens under statute)
- 6921 Georgia Ave., N.W., Ltd. P’ship v. Universal Cmty. Dev., LLC, 954 A.2d 967 (D.C. 2008) (guidance on sanctions and lis pendens propriety)
- McWilliams Ballard, Inc. v. Level 2 Dev., not included in official reporter () (cited for lis pendens validity considerations (not via official reporter here))
- Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1257 (S. Ct. 2014) (statutory interpretation of servitudes and related rights)