Wetzel v. Capital City Real Estate, LLC
2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 501
D.C.2013Background
- Appellants Wetzel and Rushbrook filed suit in the DC Superior Court against Capital City Real Estate LLC for fraud, CPPA, CPPA procedures, breach of contract, express warranty, and strict liability.
- The trial court stayed to arbitrate, then dismissed the case without prejudice; motions for reconsideration were denied, prompting an appeal.
- Purchase-related facts: Wetzel executed a Condominium Unit Purchase Agreement for Unit 1 at 57 Bryant Street NW (Feb 10, 2010); the unit was marketed via the defendant’s materials and Wetzel relied on the Public Offering Statement and Purchase Agreement.
- The property experienced significant rainfall in 2010 causing water intrusion and mold; appellants incurred mold cleanup costs and Rushbrook resides in the unit.
- Appellants allege that defendant, a developer, knowingly concealed defects and misrepresented the property’s condition during marketing.
- The DC Court of Appeals held some claims viable (fraud and CPPA) and others dismissed (breach of contract/express warranty; CPA proper scope; strict liability).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraud viability | Wetzel relied on misrepresentations about the property | No material misrepresentation pleaded or reliance lacking | Fraud claim viable; remanded |
| CPPA viability | CPPA misrepresentations violated multiple provisions | CPPA claims insufficiently tied to a proper provision or consumer transaction | CPPA claims viable; remanded |
| Breach of contract/express warranty viability | Limited warranty in Purchase Agreement/Public Offering Statement obligates defendant | Capital City was not a party to the documents; claims improper | Claims properly dismissed against Capital City Real Estate |
| Strict liability viability | Real estate sold as product; defect caused mold/harm | Not addressed at this stage; liability unclear | Strict liability claim viable; remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Kumar v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer Auth., 25 A.3d 9 (D.C.2011) (fraud elements; reliance, damages)
- Grayson v. AT&T Corp., 15 A.3d 219 (D.C.2011) (CPPA liberal construction; standing and claims)
- Fort Lincoln Civic Ass’n, Inc. v. Fort Lincoln New Town Corp., 944 A.2d 1055 (D.C.2008) (CPPA interpretation; liberal reception of claims)
- Bowler v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 563 A.2d 344 (D.C.1989) (defect; strict liability standards for products)
- Berman v. Watergate West, Inc., 391 A.2d 1351 (D.C.1978) (real property as product for strict liability)