Tippett v. Daly
10 A.3d 1123
| D.C. | 2010Background
- Tippett owned a single-family dwelling via a revocable trust; Daly was the long-time tenant.
- In 2001, the owner offered sale under TOPA; Daly allegedly mailed a written statement of interest May 18, 2001.
- Owner testified he did not receive Daly’s statement until June 2, 2001; Daly deposited $20,000 and delivered a purchase contract on July 30, 2001.
- Trial court held Daly timely provided the statement (May 18) and that the owner waived a 90-day notice to vacate; other issues resolved in Daly’s favor.
- Division reversed on the first issue; en banc retained issues and issued a modified opinion, noting statutory amendments effective 2010.
- Court ultimately held Daly failed to provide the statement within 30 days because the owner did not receive it within that period; case remanded for dismissal of Daly’s complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of 'provide ... with' in TOPA | Tippett argued 'provide' means receipt by owner | Daly argued mailing within 30 days suffices | Tenant must make the statement available to owner within 30 days |
| Deadline calculation for single-family TOPA responses | Time starts on receipt of offer; mail-in timing irrelevant | Time should run from mailing date | Deadline runs from offer receipt; 30 days to provide must be available to owner |
| Effect of 2010 amendments on retroactivity | Amendments clarify future application | Amendments retroactive or not stated | Amendment prospective; did not alter 2001 interpretation for this case |
Key Cases Cited
- Wemhoff v. District of Columbia, 887 A.2d 1004 (D.C.2005) (statutory interpretation de novo; contextual reading)
- 1618 Twenty-First Street Tenants' Ass'n, Inc. v. Phillips Collection, 829 A.2d 201 (D.C.2003) (interpretation of 'provide' within TOPA context)
- Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (U.S.1995) (ordinary meaning of statutory terms; legislative intent in language)
- Dolan v. United States Postal Service, 546 U.S. 470 (U.S.2006) (contextual ambiguity; statutory interpretation rules)
- FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (U.S.2000) (statutory meaning in context)
- Winters v. Ridley, 596 A.2d 569 (D.C.1991) (interpretation of legislative history; caution on post-enactment views)
- Orius Telecommunications, Inc. v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 857 A.2d 1061 (D.C.2004) (interpretation of statutory terms like 'provide' in context)
- Callanan v. United States, 364 U.S. 587 (U.S.1961) (rule of lenity referenced in statutory interpretation)