George C. Papageorge v. Matt Banks, et al.

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for Matt and Diane Banks in George Papageorge’s action seeking payment under an agreement concerning tenant rights, litigation expenses, and settlement proceeds. The court held that the agreement bore hallmarks of champerty but concluded that summary judgment was improper because Papageorge claimed an independent interest in the underlying dispute, including interests arising from assigned TOPA rights and prior expenditures. The case was remanded for further proceedings; judgment for Diane Banks was affirmed because she was not a party to the agreement.

Holdings

1. The Agreement bore the hallmarks of champerty because it contemplated financing a wrongful-eviction suit at Papageorge's expense in exchange for a substantial share of the proceeds, but the Agreement was not necessarily champertous if Papageorge had an independent legal interest in the litigation or subject matter.
2. Past expenditures for rent and litigation relating to the property could potentially provide Papageorge an independent interest in Banks's claims and therefore could defeat a finding of champerty.
3. It would not have been unreasonable for Papageorge to believe that Banks needed to be restored to possession for his TOPA rights to be triggered and that, without restoration, Papageorge's assigned TOPA rights were in jeopardy.
4. Banks v. ESB did not conclusively establish Banks's continuing possessory interest or eliminate the need for further litigation concerning possession and tenant rights.
5. Summary judgment for Matt Banks was improper because whether Papageorge honestly and reasonably believed that he had an independent interest in the property, Banks's wrongful-eviction claim, or the expectant TOPA rights was a disputed factual issue.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the December 9, 2010 Agreement was necessarily champertous and unenforceable as a matter of law.
2. Whether Papageorge's claimed past expenditures, assigned TOPA rights, or asserted interest in protecting Banks's possessory and tenant rights could constitute an independent interest defeating champerty.
3. Whether the existence and reasonableness of Papageorge's asserted independent interest presented genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment.
4. Whether the trial court properly denied reconsideration and refused to consider the evidence concerning the settlement and subsequent federal ejectment litigation.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded