Crockett v. Deutsche Bank National Trust

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment for possession entered as a sanction after a former mortgagor failed to make payments required by a protective order following foreclosure. The court held that Superior Court Landlord and Tenant Rule 12-I(g)(2)(B) did not prohibit the sanction because the parties lacked a contractual landlord-tenant relationship. The court declined to review the initial protective order due to the appellant's failure to preserve the issue and provide an adequate record.

Holdings

1. Rule 12-I(g)(2)(B) prohibits possession as a sanction in a case involving a contractual landlord-tenant relationship with no allegation of nonpayment of rent; it does not prohibit possession as a sanction when the parties lack a contractual landlord-tenant relationship. A holdover mortgagor after foreclosure is a tenant at will for purposes of summary possession procedures, but is not in a contractual landlord-tenant relationship with the foreclosure purchaser.
2. The court could not review Crockett's challenge to the initial protective order because the issue was raised for the first time on appeal and the record lacked the transcript necessary to evaluate the trial court's exercise of discretion.
3. The landlord-and-tenant possession proceeding did not decide title on the merits and therefore did not preclude Crockett from filing a separate wrongful-foreclosure claim based on an alleged failure to provide an opportunity to cure or other irregularities.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Superior Court Landlord and Tenant Rule 12-I(g)(2)(B) prohibited the trial court from entering a judgment for possession as a sanction because the action did not allege nonpayment of rent.
2. Whether the appellate court could review Crockett's challenge to the initial entry and amount of the protective order when the issue was raised for the first time on appeal and the record lacked the relevant hearing transcript.
3. Whether the landlord-and-tenant proceeding precluded a later wrongful-foreclosure claim.

Disposition

affirmed