ROSITA JUUL v. LYNETTE RAWLINGS
153 A.3d 749
| D.C. | 2017Background
- In 2005 Soren Juul quitclaimed 50% of his home to Lynette Rawlings; after their relationship ended Rawlings sued Juul (partition/damages) when he stopped payments in 2012.
- On October 31, 2013 the parties signed a written settlement requiring the property be listed, allowed Rawlings’ mother to submit a contract to buy for $455,000, allocated sale proceeds, and dismissed all claims with prejudice; the court dismissed the case “pursuant to the settlement agreement.”
- Realtor notices under the Tenants Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) were sent; tenants assigned their TOPA rights to appellant Rosita Juul (Soren’s mother) shortly after ratification of Rawlings’ mother’s contract.
- Rawlings moved to reopen, alleging she was misled about tenant rights; the court reopened the case for enforcement of the settlement and later granted Rawlings’ motion to enforce the settlement, ordering Juul to cooperate with the sale to Rawlings’ mother.
- Appellant argued the transfer was a "sale" under TOPA and that the settlement was not "court-approved" when the case was dismissed, so TOPA rights should control. The trial court had not reviewed the settlement terms at the initial dismissal but later enforced the agreement after fuller review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the property transfer was exempt from TOPA as a "court-approved settlement" | Juul: dismissal did not show court approval because the judge never reviewed or inquired about settlement terms, so TOPA applies | Rawlings: the case was dismissed "pursuant to the settlement agreement," and later the court enforced it, so transfer is exempt | The initial dismissal did not constitute court approval (trial court lacked record support), but the court cured that error by later reviewing and enforcing the settlement; transfer is not a "sale" under TOPA |
| Whether the trial court could enforce the settlement after reopening | Juul: once tenants assigned rights, court cannot retroactively strip TOPA rights via enforcement | Rawlings: court has authority upon reopening to enforce settlements and a court order transforms the transfer into one pursuant to court action, exempting TOPA | Court: reopening allowed enforcement; the enforcement order provided the necessary court approval to exempt the transfer from TOPA |
| Standard for a "court-approved settlement" under TOPA | Juul: the statute doesn’t define the term but court approval requires substantive familiarity with terms before dismissal | Rawlings: dismissal language and subsequent enforcement suffice | Court: court-approval requires some record showing the court knew and ratified settlement terms; later explicit enforcement cured earlier procedural defect |
| Whether appellant showed reversible abuse of discretion in enforcement | Juul: enforcement deprived tenants’ TOPA rights and was erroneous | Rawlings: enforcement was within discretion after court had facts and arguments | Court: no abuse—trial court had sufficient facts when it enforced and did not find the settlement manifestly unfair |
Key Cases Cited
- Confederate Mem’l Ass’n v. United Daughters of the Confederacy, 629 A.2d 37 (D.C. 1993) (courts may enforce settlements after reopening cases)
- Fields v. McPherson, 756 A.2d 420 (D.C. 2000) (settlements enforced according to their terms; modification requires compelling reasons)
- Gabriellan v. Gabriellan, 473 A.2d 847 (D.C. 1984) (public policy encourages binding settlement agreements)
- Weil v. Markowitz, 829 F.2d 166 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (trial-court approval may be reversed if court lacked sufficient facts to make an informed judgment)
- Brady v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Cos., 484 A.2d 566 (D.C. 1984) (trial court can cure prior procedural error by later considering the issue and entering appropriate relief)
- Shepherd Park Citizens Ass’n v. Gen. Cinema Beverages, 584 A.2d 20 (D.C. 1990) (upholding approval where court examined fairness and substance of settlement)
- Boyle v. Giral, 820 A.2d 561 (D.C. 2003) (court-held hearing on class settlement fairness supports approval)
- Tsintolas Realty Co. v. Mendez, 984 A.2d 181 (D.C. 2009) (court’s reading of settlement in open court supports subsequent enforcement)