McPherson v. District of Columbia Housing Authority

• Decision Date: 16 October 2003
• Docket Number: No. 02-CV-296.,02-CV-296.
• Parties: IRMA MCPHERSON, APPELLANT, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSING AUTHORITY, APPELLEE.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Page 1

IRMA MCPHERSON, APPELLANT, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSING AUTHORITY, APPELLEE.

No. 02-CV-296.

Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

Argued September 16, 2003.

Decided October 16, 2003.

Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, (LT 638-02), (Hon. Zoe Bush, Trial Judge).

Daniel Habib, Law Student, D.C. Law Students in Court, with whom Dorene Haney, Supervising Attorney, and Ann Marie Hay, Executive Director, were on the brief, for appellant.

Lisa J. Dessel for appellee.

Before REID, Associate Judge, and NEWMAN and NEBEKER, Senior Judges.

REID, Associate Judge:

Appellant Debra McPherson appeals from the trial court's denial of her motion for leave to intervene, pursuant to Super. Ct. Civ. R. 24 (a),¹ in a landlord and tenant matter to set aside a default judgment which had been entered against her deceased mother, Irma McPherson.² On appeal, Ms. McPherson contends that the trial court erred by ruling on her motion "without taking [] any evidence . . . ," and raises other due process issues concerning the District of Columbia Housing Authority's ("DCHA") handling of its complaint for possession of real estate. Persuaded by Ms. McPherson's arguments, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand this matter with instructions to permit Ms. McPherson to intervene.³

FACTUAL SUMMARY

According to the record on appeal, Ms. Irma McPherson, the contractual tenant of a public housing unit located in the Northeast quadrant of the District of Columbia died in 1996. Notice of Ms. Irma McPherson's death was timely given to the DCHA. The housing unit in which Ms. Irma McPherson had resided also was shared by Debra and Tiffany McPherson,⁴ and other relatives, who continued to live there following Ms. Irma McPherson's death. No new lease or lease agreement was executed by any of the remaining relatives and the DCHA. From 1996 through 2001, Ms. Debra McPherson continued to recertify for the housing unit by signing the name of the decedent along with her own.

In April 2001, Ms. McPherson was invited by the DCHA to apply for head of household status in order to determine her eligibility, and that of other relatives of the decedent, for the public housing unit in which they resided. Ms. McPherson's May 2001 application was preliminarily denied due to her alleged past criminal activity. Two letters from the DCHA to Ms. McPherson informing her of administrative mechanisms of redress available to her went unacknowledged.⁵ Ms. McPherson claims she never received either communication. No other application for eligibility was initiated by any other occupant of the housing unit.

On January 8, 2002, the DCHA initiated an in rem action to recover possession of the housing unit. Ms. McPherson claims she was alerted to this action by a summons posted on the property on January 17, 2002, noting that eviction proceedings had begun against Ms. Irma McPherson. A default judgment was ordered on January 29, 2002. On January 30, 2002, Ms. McPherson filed a pro se motion for leave to intervene and to vacate the default judgment.⁶ Her motion was denied "for want of prosecution." Because her hospitalization for a kidney ailment had precluded her presence at a February 7, 2002, hearing on her motion, Ms. McPherson filed a motion for reconsideration on February 15, 2002, which was granted. A new hearing was scheduled for March 12, 2002, but on February 28, 2002, a writ of restitution was issued. However, Ms. McPherson successfully applied for a stay of the writ. Following a non-evidentiary hearing on March 19, 2002, the trial court denied Ms. McPherson's motion to intervene.

ANALYSIS

Ms. McPherson argues that she has a "bona fide interest in the property" and the trial court erred in denying her motion for leave to intervene. In particular, Ms. McPherson claims that her occupancy status amounts to a protectable interest and she was entitled to due process rights. The DCHA asserts that Ms. McPherson "is not a tenant," but merely "a permissive occupant pursuant to [Ms. Irma McPherson's] tenancy."

The trial court's order denying the motion for leave to intervene as of right pursuant to Super. Ct. Civ. R. 24 (a), is appealable to this court as a final order. Vale Props., Ltd. v. Canterbury Tales, Inc., 431 A.2d. 11, 14 (D.C. 1981) (citing Calvin-Humphrey v. District of Columbia, 340 A.2d 795 (D.C. 1975)). "To the extent that [the trial] court's ruling on a motion to intervene as a right is based on questions of law, it is reviewed de novo; to the extent that it is based on questions of fact, it is ordinarily reviewed for abuse of discretion." Mova Pharm. Corp. v. Shalala, 341 U.S. App. D.C. 355, 140 F.3d 1060, 1074 (1998). Furthermore, "[e]ven where intervention of right is sought under Rule 24 (a)(2), as here, the court must exercise its discretion in determining whether the application is timely made and whether the proposed intervenor's interest is adequately represented by existing parties. Hodgson v. United Mine Workers of America, 153 U.S. App. D.C. 407 414 n.36, 473 F.2d 118, 125 n.36 (citing J. MOORE, FEDERAL PRACTICE para. 24.13 [1] at 24-524 (2 d ed. 1969)).⁷ Furthermore, this court examines "the record and the trial court's determination for those indicia of rationality and fairness that will assure it that the trial court's action was proper." Johnson v. United States, 398 A.2d 354, 362 (D.C. 1977). The transcript of the March 19th hearing reveals only relatively brief comments by the attorneys; no testimony was taken. Nor was any documentary evidence introduced. Significantly, the trial court made no factual findings, nor conclusions of law. Indeed, at the conclusion of comments by the attorneys, the trial judge said cryptically: "All right, the motion to intervene is denied."

In Calvin-Humphrey v. District of Columbia, 340 A.2d 795 (D.C . 1975), we set forth the factors that a trial court must consider in determining whether to grant or deny a motion to intervene: (1) whether the person see king to intervene "has an interest in the transaction which is the subject matter of the suit"; (2) whether "the disposition of the suit may as a practical matter impair his [or her] ability to protect that interest"; and (3) whether "his [or her] interest is adequately represented by existing parties." Id. at 798. See Super. Ct. Civ. R. 24 (a). We adopted a broad reading of the word "interest," concluding that "the `interest' test is primarily a practical guide to disposing of lawsuits by involving as many apparently concerned persons as is compatible with efficiency and due process." Id. at 799 (quoting Nuesse v. Camp, 128 U.S. App. D.C. 172, 178, 385 F.2d 694, 700 (1967)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, we stated that: "Properly applied, [rule 24 (a)] should promote judicial economy by facilitating the resolution of related issues in a single lawsuit, while preventing litigation from becoming unmanageably complex." Id. at 799 (citing Smuck v. Hobson, 132 U.S. App. D.C. 372, 376, 408 F.2d 175, 179 (1969)). In short, "[w]e have recognized that Rule 24 (a) `should be liberally interpreted.'" Robinson v. First Nat'l Bank of Chicago, 765 A.2d 543, 544 (D.C. 2001) (quoting Vale Props., Ltd., supra, 431 A.2d at 14).

Therefore, with respect to the first factor, Ms. McPherson's "interest in the transaction which is the subject matter of [the law suit in this case]," Calvin-Humphrey, supra, 340 A.2d at 798, her protectable interest need not be equivalent to the interest of Irma McPherson, the contractual tenant. In moving to intervene, Ms. McPherson...