Chamberlain v. Barry, 91-182.
| Decision Date | 03 April 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-182.,91-182. |
| Parties | T.K. CHAMBERLAIN, Appellant, v. Marion BARRY, Mayor of the District of Columbia, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Margaret A. Beller, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
James C. McKay, Jr., Asst. Corp. Counsel, with whom Charles L. Reischel, Deputy Corp. Counsel, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Before ROGERS, Chief Judge, WAGNER, Associate Judge, and KERN, Senior Judge.
Appellant, T.K. Chamberlain, filed suit against the Mayor of the District of Columbia to recover rent subsidies and other damages claimed to be due under the District of Columbia's Tenant Assistance Program (TAP), D.C.Code §§ 45-2531, -2538 (1990).1 The trial court granted summary judgment for the District. We affirm.
On October 28, 1988, appellant entered a lease agreement with Victoria Carpenter for the premises located at 647 20th Street, N.E. in the District of Columbia. Appellant is the managing partner for a partnership which owns the property. Mrs. Carpenter had obtained a certificate of eligibility for participation in the Tenant Assistance Program from the Department of Public and Assisted Housing (the "Department").2 An inspector for the Department inspected appellant's property and determined that the fair market monthly rental should be $706. However, the Department never approved the lease executed by appellant and the tenant, and the Department's representative cancelled an appointment at which appellant expected the lease to be approved and a tenant assistance contract to be entered. Appellant had allowed Mrs. Carpenter to take possession of the premises prior to the date scheduled for the hearing. In the complaint, appellant alleges that he relied upon "the approved certification" in renting the property to Mrs. Carpenter. Further, appellant alleged that the Department approved leases for other tenants in his properties after the tenants took possession, and the government paid the past due rents in a lump sum.3
The trial court found that the following facts were undisputed: (1) the parties never entered a tenant assistance contract; (2) the landlord was aware of TAP's requirements of a contract; (3) the premises had been inspected and a fair market rent assigned; (4) the tenant entered a lease agreement with the landlord, took possession on November 1, 1988, and was evicted in June 1989 for nonpayment of rent; and (5) the District in the past had paid rent subsidies from the date of possession once it executed a contract with the landlord. However, the court concluded as a matter of law that the District was not obligated to make payments to appellant without a tenant assistance contract and that the District was not estopped from denying liability.
A brief review of the statutory and regulatory scheme under which the TAP program operates is essential to an understanding of appellant's claims and the disposition of the issues on appeal. Pursuant to the statute, the Mayor is authorized to "enter into contracts to make rental assistance payments to housing providers of rental dwelling units on behalf of eligible families...." D.C. § 45-2533(a) (1990).4 An individual seeking to participate in the program must submit an application to the Department, which will issue a certificate of eligibility if the family meets certain criteria. D.C.Code § 45-2533(d); 14 DCMR §§ 1810, 1820. The statute provides that the Mayor is authorized to enter into long-term tenant assistance contracts with housing providers which obligate the housing provider to offer and lease the rental units specified in the contract to families receiving tenant assistance. D.C.Code § 45-2532(d)(1)(A). The contract obligates the Mayor to make tenant assistance payments to the housing provider during the term of the contract in accordance with its terms provided the housing complies substantially with the housing regulations. The Mayor may also enter such contracts with housing providers of individual dwelling units on behalf of eligible families. D.C.Code § 45-2533. The Mayor is required to issue rules consistent with the statute to administer the TAP program. D.C.Code § 45-2532(e).
Regulations governing TAP require that families submit a request for lease approval with various certifications from the housing provider who agrees to lease a unit to them. 14 DCMR §§ 1914.1 and 1914.2. If the Department determines that the housing unit substantially complies with District housing regulations and other requirements governing the condition of residential premises and that the proposed lease complies with the law, it will notify the housing provider and the family of its determination of lease approval. 14 DCMR § 1914.3. After notification, the family and the housing provider are required to execute the lease, sign two copies of the tenant assistance contract, and provide the Department with a copy for execution. 14 DCMR § 1914.4. The regulations require the Department and the housing provider to execute a tenant assistance contract which becomes effective on the day assistance begins. 14 DCMR § 1916.1. A tenant assistance contract is defined by statute as a written document. D.C.Code § 45-2531(12).5
Although appellant's unit was approved in this case and the fair market rent was determined by a housing inspector, the tenant assistance contract was never signed. Appellant contends that in giving possession to the tenant prior to approval of the lease and execution of a tenant assistance contract by the District, he relied on the tenant's approved certification, an unspecified oral promise, and the Department's post-possession approval of two other properties leased by appellant under the program. Therefore, appellant argues, the District is estopped to deny the contract.
To assert an estoppel effectively, appellant must show that: (1) the District made a promise to him; (2) he suffered injury due to reasonable reliance on it; and (3) the promise must be enforced to prevent injustice and promote the public interest. District of Columbia v. McGregor Properties, 479 A.2d 1270, 1273 (D.C.1984); Landow v. Georgetown-Inland West Corp., 454 A.2d 310, 314 (D.C.1982). Assuming arguendo that appellant could identify evidence of a promise made by a government agent sufficient to establish the first element for an estoppel,6 appellant cannot meet the element of reasonable reliance. With full knowledge of the program's requirements, it was unreasonable for appellant to rely on any oral promises to lease the property without first obtaining a written contract from the government. A person making or seeking to make a contract with a municipal corporation is charged or imputed with knowledge of the scope of the agency's authority. Coffin v. District of Columbia, 320 A.2d 301, 303 (D.C.1974).
Appellant could not have relied upon an oral promise given his imputed knowledge that execution of a tenant assistance contract was necessary before the District would be bound to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Dist. of Columbia
...corporation must take notice of the nature and extent of its agent's authority. Id. at 222 and 222 n. 7 (citing Chamberlain v. Barry, 606 A.2d 156, 159 (D.C.1992)), and Coffin, 320 A.2d at 303 (quoting 10 McQuillan Municipal Corporations § 29.04 at 219–22 (3d ed.1966)). Thus, the Bank was b......
-
Wallace v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.
...423 A.2d 917, 924 n. 15 (D.C.1980). However, to succeed on an estoppel theory, a party's reliance must be reasonable. Chamberlain v. Barry, 606 A.2d 156, 158–59 (D.C.1992). Weeks argues that when Amtrak rejected its defense and chose instead to proceed with representation furnished by Liber......
-
Mamo v. District of Columbia, 06-CV-845.
...McGregor Props., 479 A.2d 1270, 1273 (D.C.1984)); see also Leonard v. District of Columbia, 801 A.2d 82, 86 (D.C.2002); Chamberlain v. Barry, 606 A.2d 156, 158 (D.C.1992). Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that Mr. Mamo "could not reasonably have relied on the purported auth......
-
Williams v. District of Columbia, No. 03-CV-1271.
...nature and extent of the agent's authority") (quoting Coffin v. District of Columbia, 320 A.2d 301, 303 (D.C.1974)); Chamberlain v. Barry, 606 A.2d 156, 159 (D.C.1992); Strong v. District of Columbia, 1 Mackey 265 (D.C.Sup. 1881). See also Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 6......