Lindsey v. Prillman

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a protective order and undertaking in a possession action involving an alleged agreement for the occupant to renovate and later purchase the property. The court held that a protective order was unwarranted because the arrangement did not establish periodic rental payments or a landlord-tenant relationship, and that an undertaking was not required because the occupant asserted only a contingent opportunity to obtain title. The court also declined to apply equitable conversion because the alleged contract’s validity and enforceability were uncertain.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to enter a protective order because Lindsey failed to establish that the possession action was based on nonpayment of rent or that a landlord-tenant relationship requiring periodic rental payments existed.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to order an undertaking because Prillman was not asserting present title to the property; she was asserting only a contingent contractual opportunity to acquire title.
3. The trial court did not err by failing to apply equitable conversion sua sponte because the issue was not raised below and, in any event, the alleged contingent contract was not shown to be valid and enforceable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to enter a protective order requiring Prillman to make periodic payments into the court registry.
2. Whether Prillman's asserted contractual opportunity to obtain title constituted a plea of title requiring the trial court to order an undertaking under Superior Court Landlord and Tenant Rule 5(c).
3. Whether the doctrine of equitable conversion required the trial court to treat Prillman as an equitable owner and impose an undertaking or strike her contract defense.

Disposition

affirmed