District of Columbia v. Brookstowne Community Development Company

987 A.2d 442 (D.C. 2010) · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · January 21, 2010 · No. No. 08-CV-264

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that the Homestead Housing Preservation Act did not authorize the District to sell a large multifamily residential property under the Homestead Program to a for-profit entity. Because the District of Columbia agency lacked statutory capacity to enter the contract, the agreement was void ab initio, and the District could not be estopped from denying its enforceability. The court reversed the judgment awarding Brookstowne damages and ordered judgment for the District.

Holdings

  1. The Homestead Housing Preservation Act did not authorize DHCD to contract to sell a Homestead Program property to a for-profit entity. The statute's use of 'only' and its exhaustive enumeration of eligible categories limited consideration to qualified tenant associations, cooperative housing associations, and nonprofit developers of cooperative housing opportunities.
  2. DHCD regulations could not expand the categories of entities authorized by the Homestead Housing Preservation Act to participate in the Homestead Program. The regulation's reference to 'other entities' had to be construed consistently with the statute and could not authorize contracts with for-profit entities.
  3. The District could not be estopped from disavowing the contract. A party contracting with the District is charged with constructive notice of the limits of the government's actual authority and cannot reasonably rely on representations that an agency or agent has authority it plainly lacks.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Homestead Housing Preservation Act authorized DHCD to contract to sell a large multi-family residential property under the Homestead Program to a for-profit entity.
  2. Whether DHCD regulations referring to proposals from 'other entities' expanded the statutory categories of eligible participants.
  3. Whether the District was estopped from denying the enforceability of the contract based on DHCD's representations and conduct.

Disposition

reversed

Cases Cited (18)

  • Mitchell v. United States, 977 A.2d 959, 968 (D.C. 2009)(followed)
  • Rosenthal v. National Produce Co., 573 A.2d 365, 369 n.9 (D.C. 1990)(followed)
  • L.K. Comstock & Co. v. United Engineers & Constructors, Inc., 880 F.2d 219, 221 (9th Cir. 1989)(followed)
  • United States v. John McShain, Inc., 258 F.2d 422, 103 U.S.App. D.C. 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 832, 79 S. Ct. 52, 3 L. Ed. 2d 70 (1958)(followed)
  • District of Columbia v. Greene, 806 A.2d 216, 222 (D.C. 2002)(followed)
  • Citizens Ass'n of Georgetown v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 642 A.2d 125, 128 (D.C. 1994)(followed)
  • Davis v. United States, 397 A.2d 951, 956 (D.C. 1979)(followed)
  • Lennon v. United States, 736 A.2d 208, 210 (D.C. 1999)(followed)
  • Allman v. Snyder, 888 A.2d 1161, 1169 (D.C. 2005)(followed)
  • Council of D.C. v. Clay, 683 A.2d 1385, 1390 (D.C. 1996)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 18.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from District Of Columbia District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals