Black v. Tamamian., 421.
| Decision Date | 01 November 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 421.,421. |
| Citation | 49 A.2d 547 |
| Parties | BLACK v. TAMAMIAN. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Division.
Action by Paul Tamamian against Norman Black to recover possession of housing accommodations. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Kelley E. Griffith, of Alexandria, Va., for appellant.
H. Max Ammerman, of Washington, D. C. (Louis Ottenberg, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and CLAGETT, Associate Judges.
This is an appeal by a tenant from a judgment in favor of his landlord for possession of housing accommodations. The basis of the action was that the landlord sought in good faith to recover possession for his immediate and personal occupancy as a dwelling, in accordance with Section 5(b)(2) of the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act. Code 1940, § 45-1605(b)(2). Approximately four months prior to the bringing of the present action, a similar action had been brought by the same landlord against the same tenant for the same premises on the same ground; and that action resulted in a judgment for the tenant on the ground that the landlord had not shown he sought possession in good faith. In the present action the tenant pleaded the judgment in the former action as res judicata. Refusal of the trial court to sustain the plea of res judicata is the main assignment of error on this appeal.
It is well settled that ‘a right, question or fact distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, as a ground of recovery, cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies.’ Hines v. Welch, 57 App.D.C. 371, 376, 23 F.2d 979, 984, quoting from Southern Pacific Railroad v. United States, 168 U.S. 1, 18 S.Ct. 18, 42 L.Ed. 355. This court has applied the doctrine of res judicata to landlord and tenant cases. Scholl v. Tibbs, D.C.Mun.App., 36 A.2d 352.
But it is also well settled that if a new and different situation arises subsequent to the judgment, and a changed situation can be proven, there may be a re-examination of the same question between the same parties, since the prior adjudication is limited to the facts as they existed at the time of rendition of the judgment. Memphis City Bank v. State of Tennessee, 161 U.S. 186, 16 S.Ct. 468, 40 L.Ed. 664; Auto Acetylene Light Co. v. Prest-O-Lite Co., Inc., 6 Cir., 264 F. 810; Williamson v. Grider, 97 Ark. 588, 135 S.W. 361; Bochner v. Rosen, 326 Ill.App. 382, 62 N.E.2d 24; Buchholz v. United States Fire Insurance Co., 269 App.Div. 49, 53 N.Y.S.2d 608.
Consequently, the adjudication that the landlord in the former suit did not seek possession in good faith cannot operate as an adjudication that the same lack of good faith exists in the present action. The landlord was at liberty to show, if he could, that by reason of changes in the situation his second action possessed the requisite good faith. It would be, we think, a distortion of the doctrine of res judicata to hold that, because of the former finding of lack of good faith, the landlord was thereafter forever barred from seeking possession against this tenant, regardless of changed circumstances and conditions.
The effect of our holding will not be to permit, as has been suggested by appellant, every disappointed landlord to immediately bring a new suit, in hope of finding a court or jury more sympathetic to his point of view. The former judgment conclusively established a lack of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DWS Washington Holdings, Inc. v. Jackson, Civ. A. No. 88-3652-GHR.
...could have been litigated in the first suit.... Alvey v. Alvey, 225 Md. 386, 390, 171 A.2d 92, 94 (1961); see also Black v. Tamamian, 49 A.2d 547 (D.C.1946). In the instant case, the defendants contend that the plaintiff could have sued for all of its damages, including future rent due unde......
-
Sigmond v. Kern, 1000.
...suit and that such rulings were limited to the facts as they existed at the time of the earlier decisions. We so ruled in Black v. Tamamian, D.C.Mun.App., 49 A.2d 547. But appellant says "that the consecutive prosecutions of four suits for possession, all within a period of seven months, ra......
-
Williams v. Thomas, 1032.
...state of the record it was error to rule that the instant case was on the pleadings barred by the rule of res judicata. In Black v. Tamamian, D.C.Mun.App., 49 A.2d 547, a landlord and tenant case, we ruled that if subsequent to a judgment a new and different situation arises and a changed s......