Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Section 1639

Citation
Section 1639
Parent Document
Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
2010-12-30

Other Sections in This Document (168)

Full Text

1,168 chars
At a minimum, the case should be remanded for further proceedings. Here, in addition to mailing his expression of interest in buying the home eighteen days after he received the owner's offer of sale—well within the thirty-day period—the tenant shortly thereafter sent a signed purchase contract that incorporated the terms in the owner's offer of sale ($400,000 price, 5% down, 60 days to settlement) and made a $20,000 deposit in escrow, all demonstrating his bona fide intention to complete the purchase. The record does not show corresponding bona fide compliance with TOPA by the owner. To the contrary, the owner's offer of sale was made grudgingly because the owner did not want to sell the property to the tenant, and the owner claimed (without corroboration) that it took two weeks for the tenant's mailed notice to reach him in nearby suburban Maryland. On this record, even accepting the court's interpretation of the statute, there is a material issue of fact in dispute—the date the owner received the tenant's mailed expression of interest in purchasing the property—that requires a remand to the trial court for further proceedings and findings of fact.