Mitchell v. Gales

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that a landlord could not collaterally attack an Office of Administrative Hearings rent-reduction order in a Superior Court proceeding to convert the order into a judgment. The court concluded that alleged mental incompetence did not create an exception to the rule limiting collateral attacks to jurisdictional defects or fraud in procuring the judgment. It reversed and remanded with instructions to enter the OAH order as a judgment.

Holdings

1. A party may not collaterally attack a final administrative judgment in a separate enforcement or conversion proceeding on the merits. A collateral challenge is permitted only when it attacks the original tribunal's jurisdiction or alleges fraud in procuring the judgment.
2. Alleged mental incompetence does not, on the record presented, create a new exception permitting collateral attack on a final civil or administrative judgment. A judgment against an incompetent person is generally voidable rather than void and must be challenged directly rather than collaterally.
3. Res judicata is an affirmative defense subject to waiver if it is not raised in the answer or timely asserted thereafter; raising it for the first time after entry of a final judgment in a collateral proceeding is impermissible.
4. An asserted double recovery does not justify a collateral attack on a final administrative order in a proceeding to enter that order as a judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a party may collaterally attack a final OAH order in a Superior Court proceeding to enter that order as a judgment by asserting res judicata based on an earlier judgment.
2. Whether alleged mental incompetence during the administrative proceeding creates an exception to the general rule prohibiting collateral attacks on prior civil judgments.
3. Whether the asserted possibility of double recovery permits a collateral attack on the OAH order.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded