Ricardo Hernandez v. Bryant Banks, 84 A.3d 543 (2014)

Citation: Ricardo Hernandez v. Bryant Banks, 84 A.3d 543 (2014)
Parent Document: Ricardo Hernandez v. Bryant Banks, 84 A.3d 543 (2014)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2014-02-06
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2654886/ricardo-hernandez-v-bryant-banks/ ↗

Full Text

2,532 chars

(…continued)
District of Columbia auctioned the Property due to the then owner’s failure to pay
the property taxes, and 718 Associates purchased the tax sale certificate when the
Bankses were still paying rent to the owner. After purchasing the tax sale
certificate, 718 Associates moved to quiet title on August 5, 2003, arguing that its
tax deed divested the owner’s estate of all interest and title to the Property and
vested good title in 718 Associates. While the quiet title case was pending
decision in the Superior Court, the owner died and her sister became personal
representative of the estate. The suit to quiet title was resolved in October 2006,
when 718 Associates and the owner’s estate agreed to a settlement that granted 718
Associates exclusive title to the Property. The settlement included an affidavit,
prepared by the estate’s attorney and signed by the personal representative of the
owner’s estate, stating that there were no valid leases and no permissive tenants on
the Property. After learning that the Property was occupied, 718 Associates
initiated the first complaint for possession against the Bankses in the Landlord-
Tenant Branch of the Superior Court on February 6, 2007 (case no. 2007 LTB
3926), but that case was dismissed without prejudice “after various continuances of
the trial date.” On April 9, 2008, 718 Associates lodged a second action to get
possession of the Property, this time alleging that the Bankses were squatters (case
no. 2008 LTB 10920 - the en banc case, Hernandez I, supra). Notwithstanding the
pendency of the second action, 718 Associates launched a third step on November
25, 2008, when it offered to sell the Property to the Bankses under the District’s
Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (“TOPA”), for $397,500.00. The TOPA
notice specifically stated: “This notice is offer of sale [and] is not a notice to
vacate.” The Bankses declined the opportunity to purchase. In July 2009, 718
Associates filed an action for declaratory judgment, seeking an order stating that
the Bankses’ right to purchase the Property under TOPA had expired. In 2010, the
Landlord-Tenant Branch granted the declaratory judgment and allowed 718
Associates to sell the Property. 718 Associates sold the Property to Mr. Hernandez
on June 30, 2010, for $397, 500.00. Mr. Hernandez received a trustee’s deed for
the Property, as well as an assignment of “the rights of the ejectment case,”
including the right “to collect all the monies that were owed.”
                                        5

Other Sections in This Document (496)

Full Text