Holmes v. Dist. of Columbia

267 A.3d 1028

Keviette HOLMES, Appellant,

v.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee.

No. 19-CV-0987

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Submitted February 11, 2021

Decided January 27, 2022

Andrew P. McGuire for appellant.

Karl Racine, Attorney General, Loren L. AliKhan, Solicitor General, Caroline S. Van Zile, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Carl J. Schifferle, Deputy Solicitor General, and Richard S. Love, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before Easterly, McLeese, and Deahl, Associate Judges.

Deahl, Associate Judge:

Keviette Holmes sued the District of Columbia and two of its police officers for wrongful eviction. Ms. Holmes's complaint alleged that she arrived home one day to find somebody claiming to be the home's new owner changing the locks on her doors. She called 911 and reported that a man was changing the locks on "her home" and trying to "put her out." When officers arrived, Ms. Holmes explained to them that her father rented the home and she had been living in it for the past two years. After the individual changing the locks apparently indicated to the officers that he had recently purchased the home, the officers directed Ms. Holmes to leave upon threat of arrest, which she did. Upon the District's motion, the trial court dismissed Ms. Holmes's wrongful eviction claims against the District for failure to state a claim. Ms. Holmes maintains on appeal that this dismissal was in error. We agree and reverse.

I.

Ms. Holmes's second amended complaint, the subject of the trial court's dismissal order, alleged the following: In 1998, Gwendolyn Rich and her husband purchased the property at 1903 Good Hope Road SE. Their son, Alex Rich, began managing the property sometime thereafter and rented it to James Holmes, Keviette Holmes's father, in 2011. Four years later, Mr. Holmes was hit by a bus and placed in a nursing home while recovering from his injuries. During her father's absence, Ms. Holmes moved into the property, notified Mr. Rich of her intention to stay, and began paying rent. She paid rent every month through November of 2017, when she alleges she was wrongfully evicted.

Several months prior, in July 2017, Alex Rich had approached Ms. Holmes stating his intention to sell the home and offering to pay her and her father $30,000 if they voluntarily vacated. Ms. Holmes refused the offer. Two months later, the Holmeses received a form notice from the Riches indicating that they had entered into a contract to sell the property to Ryan Pulliam. The notice further advised Mr. Holmes of his right to purchase the property with a matching offer under the District's Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act, or TOPA. See D.C. Code § 42-3404.02 (2020 Repl.). Within weeks, Mr. Holmes arranged to sell his TOPA rights to a developer named Brian Bailey, on the condition that the Holmeses could remain as tenants in their home. Mr. Bailey then notified Mr. Rich that he had been assigned Mr. Holmes's TOPA rights and was exercising those rights to purchase the property. In October 2017, Ms. Holmes was notified that her father was ready to be discharged from the nursing home, and she began arranging for his return home. At the same time, Mr. Rich told Ms. Holmes that he did not want her and her father to return to the property because he intended to sell it to a third party other than Mr. Bailey, their TOPA rights notwithstanding. Mr. Rich then sold the property to Mr. Pulliam on or around November 8, 2017.

That same day, Ms. Holmes returned home to find Mr. Pulliam on the front porch. Mr. Pulliam told her that he was changing the locks and that she would have to leave, and physically blocked her from entering. Ms. Holmes eventually persuaded Mr. Pulliam to let her inside the house to retrieve her phone, and once she did so, she called 911 and reported that "a man was trying to change the locks to her home and put her out." Police officers arrived on the scene about an hour later and spoke with Mr. Pulliam, who showed them an unspecified document. The officers next spoke with Ms. Holmes, who explained that her father rented the home and she had been living there for the past two years. The officers instructed Ms. Holmes to "leave the premises, pack a bag, and go," and made clear that she would be arrested "for unlawful entry and trespassing if she did not vacate as ordered." Ms. Holmes packed a small bag of things and left.

Ms. Holmes filed a lawsuit against Mr. Rich within the week. The litigation that followed was somewhat complex. The trial court entered a preliminary injunction concluding there was a wrongful eviction and permitting the Holmeses "to move back into the home." There were a number of defendants and claims—some settled, some dismissed—including successful cross-claims brought by Mr. Pulliam against the Riches.¹ However, the only claim at issue in this appeal is Ms. Holmes's claim against the District of Columbia for wrongful eviction.

Upon the District's motion, the trial court dismissed the wrongful eviction claim as set forth in Holmes's second-amended complaint, without prejudice, in an oral ruling from the bench. While the court found it to be a "close case," it ultimately concluded Ms. Holmes failed to allege the District's officers intended to oust a tenant, as it believed to be required for the intentional tort of wrongful eviction. The trial court stressed that while Ms. Holmes told responding officers "this is my home," that statement "is not the same as I have a right to be here, I paid rent, here is my lease." In the trial court's view, Ms. Holmes's allegations therefore did not indicate anything more than that the officers believed they were ejecting a mere trespasser from the premises, rather than a tenant. The officers were ultimately mistaken about that, the court acknowledged, but in its view, their mistake evinced mere negligence rather than an intentional eviction. The court further opined that as a practical matter the officers needed to do something to resolve the impasse—"if they leave [both Mr. Pulliam and Ms. Holmes] there, they do nothing, that's going to be irresponsible."

Holmes timely appealed the dismissal of her wrongful eviction claim. See Perry v. District of Columbia , 474 A.2d 824, 825-26 (D.C. 1984) ("[D]ismissal of a complaint, even without prejudice, is sufficiently drastic to be deemed final, and therefore appealable.").

II.

We review the "dismissal of a claim pursuant to a 12(b)(6) motion de novo , ‘presuming the complaint's factual allegations to be true and construing them in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff].’ " Calomiris v. Calomiris , 3 A.3d 1186, 1190 (D.C. 2010) (quoting Bleck v. Power , 955 A.2d 712, 715 (D.C. 2008) ). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must set forth sufficient facts to establish the elements of a legally cognizable claim." Woods v. District of Columbia , 63 A.3d 551, 552-53 (D.C. 2013). While this pleading standard requires a plaintiff to allege "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation," it "does not require ‘detailed factual allegations.’ " Potomac Dev. Corp. v. District of Columbia , 28 A.3d 531, 544 (D.C. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ).

The only issue on appeal is whether Ms. Holmes adequately pled a claim of wrongful eviction against the District.² "In order to establish wrongful eviction, a tenant must prove that the landlord performed ‘some act of a permanent character with the intention and effect of depriving the tenant of the enjoyment of the ... premises ....’ " Hinton v. Sealander Brokerage Co. , 917 A.2d 95, 101 (D.C. 2007) (quoting Int'l Comm'n on Eng. in Liturgy v. Schwartz , 573 A.2d 1303, 1305 (D.C. 1990) ). "A tenant has a right not to have his or her possession interfered with except by lawful process, and violation of that right gives rise to a cause of action in tort." Young v. District of Columbia , 752 A.2d 138, 142 (D.C. 2000) (quoting Mendes v. Johnson , 389 A.2d 781, 787 (D.C. 1978) (en banc), abrogated in part on other grounds by Davis v. Moore , 772 A.2d 204, 230 (D.C. 2001) (en banc)). Liability for wrongful eviction extends not just to landlords, but to those, including the District via its police officers, who intentionally assist the landlord in effectuating a wrongful eviction. See id. at 145 & n.15 (reversing summary judgment granted in favor of the District on wrongful eviction claim, while noting via footnote the District did not maintain on appeal that a wrongful eviction claim could not be prosecuted against it); Wilson v. Hart , 829 A.2d 511, 512 (D.C. 2003) (reversing summary judgment granted in favor of the District on wrongful eviction claim); Turpin v. Ray , No. CV 19-2394, ––– F. Supp. 3d ––––, 2020 WL 1510412 at *19-20 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2020) (claim for wrongful eviction against District's officers for aiding landlord in eviction sufficiently pled to survive motion to dismiss).

The dispute between the parties narrows down to whether Ms. Holmes plausibly alleged that officers acted with the "intent to evict" her from the premises. We conclude that she did. The facts alleged include that (1) Ms. Holmes called 911 to report that "a man was trying to change the locks to her home and put her out" (emphasis added); (2) she told responding officers that she had lived in the home for the past two years; (3) the officers were aware that her belongings were inside the home, prompting their directive to "pack a bag"; and (4) the officers ordered Ms. Holmes to leave the premises upon threat of arrest. Moreover, there is no suggestion in the complaint (5) that Mr. Pulliam indicated Ms. Holmes was not a tenant, or (6) that Mr. Pulliam lived in the home or told the officers that he did.

The situation the officers confronted, if we credit Ms. Holmes's allegations as we must in this posture, was a classic self-help eviction in which a landlord was seeking to oust a tenant without a court order...