Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)

Citation: Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
Parent Document: Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2010-12-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2551230/tippett-v-daly/ ↗

Full Text

1,294 chars

FISHER, Associate Judge:
James Tippett appeals from judgments entered following a consolidated trial of his suit for possession of a dwelling and his tenant’s suit for breach of contract.1 The trial court held (1) that the tenant had timely invoked his rights under the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (“TOPA”), D.C.Code §§ 42-3404.02 to 42-3404.13 (2001), by providing a written statement of interest within thirty days of receiving the owner’s offer of sale, see D.C.Code § 42-3404.09(1) (2001); and (2) that the owner had waived a ninety-day notice to vacate for personal use and occupancy by accepting rent for a new term that began after the notice expired. When this appeal was heard by a division of the court, we reversed the first judgment and affirmed the second. Tippett v. Daly, 964 A.2d 606 (D.C.2009). Thereafter, the full court granted appellee’s petition for rehearing en banc to reconsider the first issue and vacated the original opinion. Tippett v. Daly, 973 A.2d 691 (D.C.2009) (granting rehearing en banc). Upon reconsideration, we reach the same result, but issue this modified opinion.2 Our holding will *1125have limited impact because, as we explain in more detail below, the relevant portion of the statute has been amended. I. The Factual and Procedural Background

Other Sections in This Document (168)

Full Text