BSA 77 P STREET LLC v. Hawkins, 983 A.2d 988 (2009)

Citation: BSA 77 P STREET LLC v. Hawkins, 983 A.2d 988 (2009)
Parent Document: BSA 77 P STREET LLC v. Hawkins, 983 A.2d 988 (2009)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2009-11-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2344963/bsa-77-p-street-llc-v-hawkins/ ↗

Full Text

990 chars

BSA argues that it, personally, would not be engaging in non-rental housing use of the property, but merely the subsequent owner-occupier would be. BSA argues that it would not be a “housing provider” within the definition of the statute because it would be selling the property, and that the new owner-occupier would not be a “housing provider” because it would not be receiving or entitled to receive rents. Thus, BSA seeks to avoid the plain meaning of the statute by using a third party to do what it was not allowed to do itself: use the property for non-rental housing. We have held in other settings that this cannot succeed. See, e.g., Myco, Inc. v. Super Concrete Co., Inc., 565 A.2d 293, 301 (D.C. *9961989) (preventing an independent contractor from receiving indemnity from an employer, where allowing indemnity would contravene statute protecting employer against non-workers’ compensation liability by exposing the employer to liability to a third party sued by the employee).

Other Sections in This Document (111)

Full Text