Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Allen v. 1901 Wyoming Avenue Cooperative Ass'n
Supreme Court brief1974
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
*-iLEe D
FEB 5° 1974
ALL ROBAK, JR CLER
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1973
No. %3- (264
BETTY M. ALLEN, a/k/a BETTY J. MINDER
AND
RICHARD P. ALLEN
Petitioners
v.
1901 WYOMING AVENUE COOPERATIVE
ASSOCIATION
Respondent
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
AND SUPERIOR COURT OF D.C.
Action Pro Se
by Petitioners
560 N Street, S. W.
(N—109)
Washington, D. C. 20024
Phone: (202) 554-4867
FS Si a
BEACON PRINTING - 293-7160 - Washington, 0.C. 20036
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WT TIS A ANE OT
Page
WUE gn kyo a ee ow eta Noe ce aa ats 2 f
Sey I os ney gra ata un ee 2
ee. Se 3 §
QUESTIONS PRESENTED .... 2.522 uee> 4
CONSTITUTIONAL and STATUTORY
PROVISIONS INVOLVED ........... 5 ;
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........... 5
ys SR oe ae ee eee 5
at YE Se See eee ene 2 6
- a ee eee eee errr 7 |
IV. Petition for Rehearing ........... 8
REASONS FOR GRANTING WRIT
ELE DES Satara ce hone ee tena 8
II. Conflicts in Lower Court Decisions Ah AeA 8 :
. ee. ee eee 10 :
io
Be RRP A Rtn se ores Pte) AE ny ee :
Reamer Geeeeeew 2 ee ne 1] :
CERSweAte OF SERVERE .. We tes.
ene APE ee we. 12 ;
APPENDICES 2 13 E
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1973
No.
BETTY M. ALLEN, a/k/a BETTY J. MINDER
AND
RICHARD P. ALLEN
Petitioners
Vv.
1901 WYOMING AVENUE COOPERATIVE
ASSOCIATION
Respondent
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
AND SUPERIOR COURT OF D.C.
Borers AMT”
Pagal
to
PREMISE
The Petitioners, Richard P. and Betty M. Allen, respect-
fully pray that this notice of appeal from the summary denial of
our previous petition to lower courts of jurisdiction be
docketed and that a Writ of Certiorari be issued for review of
proceedings in inferior courts, as well as opinions and decisions
set forth therein by the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia before the Honorable W. Byron Sorrell, CA5670-71,
filed June 28, 1972, and by the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals before Associate Judges Fickling and Nebeker, and
Quinn, Associate Judge, Retired, No. 6816, filed on November
7, 1973. (See Appendix)
This action is being taken pro se because the attorney for
the petitioners has dismissed himself from the case. The peti-
tioners therefore pray the indulgence of the Court for any
deviation from standard protocol or format in this Petition.
OPINION BELOW
In the Opinion of the Honorable W. Byron Sorrell,
Superior Court of D.C., the surcharge on subleasing levied by
the respondents on the petitioners was considered reasonable
and thereby confirmed, ordering petitioners to pay the penalty.
The Honorable Tim Murphy, Superior Court of D.C., ruled to
the contrary on the same issue in another case involving the
same respondents in litigation against another owner-member of
the cooperative held in question, to the effect that the contract
should hold over conflicting House Rules, no matter how
reasonable the infringement might be on equity nghts guaran-
teed by the Mutual Ownership Contract.
The Honorable John R. Hess, Superior Court of D.C.,
supported the opinion of Judge Tim Murphy, Superior Court of
D.C., reaffirming the contract as the sole repository of equity
rights, and denying the validity of any House Rule or Regula-
tion which in effect modifies existing property nights of a
member under the original Mutual Ownership Contract, regard-
less of how reasonable it may be.
The D.C. Court of Appeals simply reaffirmed the lower
court decisions of Judges Sorrell and Murphy, even though
opposite in decision, on the same issue, in the same area of
jurisdiction, involving the same respondent but different peti-
tioners, both of whom are owner-members in the same
cooperative housing association.
The opinions of the Superior Court of D.C. expressed by
the Honorable W. Byron Sorrell in his judgment filed on June
28, 1972 were cited in error on a number of grounds by the
petitioners and are a matter of record, all of which is on file
with the Court of Appeals but not acknowledged in its order of
denial. (See Statement of the Case, CA 5670-71) The action in
appeal to the D.C. Court of Appeals No. 6816. was denied per
curiam October 2, 1973, by a Clerk of the Court, Alexander
Stevas, in which he “ordered and adjudged that the judgment of
the Superior Court of D.C. in this cause be, and it hereby is.
affirmed.”
In response to a Petition for Rehearing to the D.C. Court
entered in the record on November 5, 1973, Mr. Stevas again
denied petitioners’ request to the D.C. Court of Appeals by the
following order: “On consideration of appellants’ petition for
rehearing, it is ORDERED that appellants’ petition is denied.”
It will be noted here that the judgment and decision of the
court was signed not by a Judge of the Court but by a Clerk of
the Court, and that no reason was given for denial of Petition
for Rehearing nor was reason given for denial of original appeal
in this case.
JURISDICTION
The petitioners, having sought relief from wrongs com-
mitted by respondent agents against them, and having ex-
hausted normal legal channels for redress, it is believed by the
petitioners that the Supreme Court of the United States now
has jurisdiction.
This question is particularly important for a Supreme
Court decision because of diametrically conflicting decisions
made on an identical issue before inferior courts at the Superior
Court level in the District of Columbia.
;
PE Ry PET, ad
PNM NAM RTE MERE INT NM OY
PICTORIAL NIP STORE RYE
SOP RIF TOCA AE OGL PIN RIS EE LL fs
:
:
z
£
‘
:
a
>
g
This Court’s jurisdiction is therefore invoked as appro-
priate to the balance of justice not only in this particular case,
but for all Cooperative Housing Associations and Condo-
miniums nationwide in the future for which there now exists no
definitive public law protecting the equity rights of individual
owners against the abuse of power by cooperative or condomi-
nium management.
The crux of the matter involves the discipline of Contract
Law and basic property rights in equity rather than laws
governing landlord and tenant relationships.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
(1) Were the petitioners’ contractual rights recognized in
decisions made by lower courts?
(2) Do minutes of a Cooperative’s Board of Directors
meeting constitute an amendment of a contract?
(3) Should “house rules” of a Cooperative Housing
Association adopted by a pro tempore Board of Directors be
permitted any legal standing if in conflict with the Mutual
Ownership Contract between the owner-member and the
Association, regardless of how reasonable the degree of abridg-
ment of equity rights guaranteed in perpetuity by said contract?
(4) Should not any ambiguity in said contract be inter-
preted in favor of the contractee, in this case the petitioners, if
the adverse interpretation would in effect nullify or infringe on
the equity nights of the individual owner-member affected
thereby?
(S) Must not the Judge consider unrebutted testimony in
reaching his conclusions?
(6) If a random term is incorporated by reference in the
contract, is the burden of proof on the person who is relying on
it, or on the Association attempting to enforce it?
(7) What is the standard for sufficiency of evidence and if
not shown, how can the Judge use it? (For example, the pub-
lished nature of an alleged house rule, particularly in the event
of conflict with an existing Mutual Ownership Contract.)
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
PROVISIONS INVOLVED
Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United
States is involved, conferring upon the Supreme Court the
judicial power in all cases in law and equity wherein there is
controversy between the states in such matters, or when lower
courts have taken opposite positions in almost identical cases in
the absence of statutory law governing the matter. Also, Article
IV of the Bill of Rights is involved in this case which prohibits
unreasonable search and seizures of personal property by
another. Statutory law, supporting the legal aspects of contracts
and prohibiting the unilateral modifications of said contracts by
a single party to the agreement or a third party unaccountable
in the transaction if challenged by either party, is involved.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
I. BACKGROUND
As a matter of fact and court record, the prime petitioner.
Betty J. Minder (now Mrs. Betty M. Allen), purchased Apart-
ment No. 33 in the 1901 Wyoming Avenue Cooperative
Association documented by Mutual Ownership Contract on the
15th day of April, 1964. (See Appendix.) At the time of
signatory of both parties to the agreement, the prime petitioner
received a copy of the Association’s Bylaws and House Rules
(See Appendix) wherein there was no mention of surcharge or
penalty for subleasing, but the contract guaranteed perpetual
use and right to sublease subject only to approval by the
Association of the prospective tenant in terms of character.
probity, etc.
In August, 1969, the prime petitioner was billed for a
rental penalty by the fiscal agent of the Association at the rate
of 75¢ per $1,000.00 capital value on Apartment No. 33. To
avoid any appearance of delinquency and to preserve credit
rating, the prime petitioner, by this time Mrs. Allen, continued
to pay this penalty for one year, but upon reexamination of her
Mutual Ownership Contract ceased to pay any further penalty
for the exercise of her contract rights in equity.
i Maalat
Il. LITIGATION
As of July 1, 1971, the petitioners were served with a
summons to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia,
filed on June 14, 1971, by the respondent’s agent asking that
the use of petitioners’ apartment be terminated and for re-
covery of costs by the respondent and such further relief be
granted by the Court as be just and proper.
This summons contained erroneous statements,
maliciously designed to obfuscate the issues involved and
prejudice the Court decision, to wit: the charge was made in
the summons that the prime petitioner, Mrs. Allen, had rented
her apartment for over three years and was therefore subject to
a fifty percent surcharge on her monthly maintenance assess-
ment; and further the false allegation was made that the apart-
ment in question was now in a business operational category,
whereas in fact the apartment in question had not then been
rented for three years, nor was it used for business enterprise or
any other purpose than a residence.
As of July 21, 1971, the petitioners, named as defendants
in this action, responded in a legal brief prepared by Attorney
John Matonis, denying the allegations of the respondents and
entering a counterclaim. The counterclaim cited abuse of legal
process by the respondents to gain unfair advantage of the
defendant petitioners in this case. A fourth separate and distinct
defense was entered against the malicious and incompetent
attack by respondent agent against the Constitutional rights of
petitioners (co-defendants) in the action cited, asking for
compensatory damages to each of them in the amount of Ten
Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) and punitive damages in the
amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00). A second
counterclaim was entered as and for a fifth separate and distinct
defense against the incompetent and malicious attack by
respondent agents directed to the nullification of petitioners’
contractual rights in equity in the amount of Ten Thousand
Dollars ($10,000.00) and punitive damages in the amount of
Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) for abuse of legal procedure,
false and malicious statements made in the summons, legal
harassment and intimidation resulting in substantial physical
injury, pain and suffering, mental and emotional distress, un-
necessarily creating medical and legal expenses, court costs, loss
of rental income, as well as embarrassment and opprobrium by
the members of the Cooperative and the community of interest.
The case in Civil Action No. 5670-71 came before the
Honorable W. Byron Sorrell in Superior Court of the District of
Columbia on April 19, 1972, continuing for three days wherein
the respondent’s agents were allowed to testify interminably
without interruption on irrelevant issues and opinions, but the
petitioners were interrupted by the Court and testimony sup-
pressed regarding the facts in the matter, overruling objections
to this prejudicial procedure by petitioners’ attorney, John
Matonis.
The opinion filed by Judge Sorrell for the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia at the conclusion of the initial
proceedings brought before his Court by the respondents can be
briefly summarized by quoting Item 6 under Conclusions, on
page 6:
“6. That the monthly rental surcharge is reason-
able in view of the Association’s consistent policy
favoring owner-occupants.” (emphasis added)
Upon this premise, Judge Sorrell found for the respondents and
denied the petitioners’ case.
fil. APPEAL
On May 1, 1973, the petitioners filed an appeal from the
decision of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Civil
Division, CA 5670-71, represented by attorney John Matonis,
before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Case No.
6816. The opinion of the Court of Appeals is summarized as
follows:
“On consideration hereby and after a review of
the record and applicable law, the court is of the
opinion that there exists no error of law which
requires reversal, and that the factual rulings of the
trial judge are fully supported by the record.
Peisnde’ Re
a Ley Ov vel a eat vill
Bian: Nil Inca
Oe Tet a
“Accordingly, this 2nd day of October, 1973, it
is ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the
Superior Court of D.C. in this case be and is hereby
affirmed.” (See Appendix)
IV. PETITION FOR REHEARING
On November 5, 1973, the petitioners filed a Petition for
Rehearing before the D.C. Court of Appeals, citing the judicial
errors committed in lower court opinions and decisions and
providing guidance for a correct decision.
On November 7, 1973, an order was issued by the D.C.
Court of Appeals denying the petition without explanation or
opinion in support of the decision.
REASONS FOR GRANTING WRIT
I. INTRODUCTION
In view of the tremendous growth of housing cooperatives
and condominiums throughout the country, both metropolitan
and in the suburbs, some substantial control must be exercised
by Government under law to regulate the transactions between
owner-tenants and Cooperative Management, similar to landlord
and tenant regulations. At present, there is no statutory law
specifically governing these relationships and transactions, on a
national level.
Il. CONFLICTS IN LOWER COURT DECISIONS
In the case cited above in which the Association was
upheld by Judge Sorrell, the same conflict of interest was simul-
taneously held in reverse decision by Judge Tim Murphy by
decision rendered December 28, 1971, CA 5669-71, 190]
Wyoming Avenue Cooperative Association v. Margaret Lee:
“Defendant had the right under the original
Ownership contract, paragraph 7, to ‘sublease her
dwelling’ without the restriction of an increased
operating charge which plaintiff (Respondent) now
attempts to impose by a unilateral, yet indirect,
9
modification of that contract via its subsequently
enacted by-laws. The parole evidence rule requires the
Court to enforce the presumption ‘that a written con-
tract is the final repository of the agreement of the
parties.” Luther Williams, Jr. Inc. v. Johnson, 229
A.2d 163, 165 (D.C.App. 1967).”
On March 8, 1972, Judge Murphy ruled further on the
same case, CA 5669-71, supra, to wit:
“Furthermore, the Court is of the view that the
terms of the original ownership contract cannot be
drastically rewritten by merely a majority vote of the
Cooperative Association. Although paragraph 13 of
the contract requires the association members to
‘abide by’ the rules and regulations, such language
cannot in any way be construed to permit a complete
rewriting of a member's vital property rights. as in
this case the right to sublease a dwelling without the
restriction of an increased operation charge. The
Association is free to pass revisions to its rules as long
as the member’s property nghts under the orginal
ownership contract are not affected thereby. Other-
wise the Association must enter into meaningful
negotiations with its members in order to change the
terms of their contracts and obtain compliance with
the new terms.”
In his denial of the respondent’s claims and efforts in liti-
gation against Margaret Lee in an almost identical case to that
presented for the petitioners against the same respondents,
Judge Murphy ruled against the respondents, in contrast with
Judge Sorrell who ruled for the respondents. This conflict of
opinion at the Superior Court level of D.C. is one of the bases
for appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, demonstrating a need for
final decision in this area of ambiguity not governed by statu-
tory law and in conflict at inferior court.
In Civil Action CA 5915-72, the Honorable John R. Hess.
of the Superior Court of D.C. again ruled in favor of Margaret
D. Lee against the respondents in this case on an almost
identical matter of litigation, to wit:
OOP OR
eee VOTRE
SP ELIT PTR A eB
Dewi,
10
‘House Rules and Regulations, if reasonable, are
binding upon all members who had contracted with
the Association subsequent to their adoption. House
Rules and Regulations, however, unilaterally adopted
by the Association cannot modify existing property
rights of a member under the original ownership
contract regardless of how reasonable they may be.
(From the Opinion and Order of Judge Murphy in
1901 Wyoming Avenue Cooperative Association v.
Lee, CA 5669-71) (Emphasis added)
lil. . CONSEQUENCES
As a result of this unrealistic but direct attack on her
equity and property rights, Mrs. Allen had to undergo a series of
clinical and psychiatric treatments at great personal expense.
Mr. Matonis, attorney for the petitioners, allowed the
respondents to amend their previous legal position before Judge
Sorrell in order to make their position more plausible but the
damage to Mrs. Allen had already been done at great cost to her
physical and mental health as well as monetary losses accrued,
not only for medical and psychiatric expenses but also for loss
of her tenants who were harassed by the respondents and ceased
to rent Mrs. Allen’s apartment. These facts were not recognized
or acknowledged by the inferior court before Judge Sorrell.
CONCLUSIONS
For the foregoing reasons, this notice of appeal, Petition
for Writ of Certiorari, request for review of lower court
opinions and reversal of inferior court decisions should be
granted on the basis of questions presented and the information
provided herein or available on request from inferior court
records.
Under the circumstances and conditions imposed, the peti-
tioners are doing the best they can to preserve the integrity of
our culture at great personal cost, without legal counsel in
accordance with constitutional rights, pro se.
LAL PO ET AEE GRE OIE A TS PON
RELIEF REQUESTED
The U.S. Supreme Court is hereby respectfully requested
to rule on the questions presented, resolve the existing conflicts
at inferior court levels for the benefit of all concerned now and
in the future regarding cooperative and condominium relation-
ships between management and owner-tenants. But particularly
in this case, the Court is requested to grant injunctive relief to
the petitioners against any further coercive attempts by the
respondents to extort money from or intimidate petitioners in
their exercise of contractual rights guaranteed in their Mutual
Ownership Contract as outlined above.
Respectfully submitted, pro se
Betty M. Allen and
Richard P. Allen, Petitioners
560 “‘N”’ Street, S.W. (N-109)
Washington, D.C. 20024
Betty M. Allen
Richard P. Allen
PBA Aabet nea 4
Bevetisinntiices crus
12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
We hereby certify that copies of the foregoing were
mailed to Respondent agent, Stuart H. Robeson, Esq., 1828
Jefferson Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 10036, this 15th
day of February, 1974.
Betty M. Allen
Richard P. Allen
13
INDEX OF APPENDICES
1. Application for perpetual ownership
t
Mutual Ownership Contract
ByLaws dated December 8, 1954
tn os
House Rules dated October 1, 1953
5. Summons to Superior Court of D.C., dated June 14,
1971
6. Complaint for Declaratory Relief by Respondents, dated
June 14, 1971
7. Answer to Complaint and Summons with Counterclaim
for Damages, dated July 21, 1971
8. Order of Superior Court of D.C., Judge Tim Murphy,
CAS6: CA5669-71, dated December 28, 1971
9. Order by Superior Court of D.C. Judge Tim Murphy,
CA566° CA5669-71, dated March 8, 1972
10. Memorandum Opinion and Order by Superior Court
Judge W. Byron Sorrell, CA5670-71, dated June 28,
1972
11. D.C. Court of Appeals Decision, 1901 Wyoming Avenue
Cooperative Association v. Margaret Lee, No. 6732,
dated February 27. 1973
12. D.C. Court of Appeals Decision, Betty M. Allen and
Richard P. Allen v. 1901 Wyoming Avenue Co-
operative Association, No. 6816 (CA5S670-71),dated
October 2, 1972
13. Petition for Rehearing before D.C. Court of Appeals No.
6816 (CA 5670-71) dated November 5, 1973
14. D.C. Court of Appeals Order, No. 6816, filed November
7, 1973
an a AAS
‘ 14
; 15. Memorandum Opinion by the Superior Court of D.C. of
3 Judge John R. Hess, CA5915-72, dated January 16,
1974.
Lie ee Na hi el BLS
BED oes TED
bea SUA. a ek Uae d y
|
4
SESE OE ECE EI CATE NS ES AEE RN a NOE
15 APPENDIX 1
Beosd of Dircevors
1901 wyoming «venue Cooperative “ssoci-tion lete -
Gentlenen:
Application ic :sde for tho transfer of right of occupancy and
perpotusl overship of Apartmont # ae ° ;
.
NAIE hat ionality :
ADDRESS d
Streot City Stace
Do you own or rent at sbovo address? If renting, give nssze of
Ieandlerd Address
Phone number How long have you lived et above accress”
POSITION CX TYPE @ \. CRE
Exzployer
Acuress : Phone Funter
If employed in this position less then two yeers, give nare of
Former Employer
Address Phone Number
Kamo of banks with which you do business
Mame of firm with which you heve charge account
The occupants of this apartment will be: (if children, give aes)
Nace helaaionsrip Age
Nace Kelaticnship Age
Nane Relationship Age
REFERER CES:
Nane Address Positicn
Varn Aandrace Poetrinan
Naz Acdress Fosition
It is undorstcod and orreed that the apnlicant and all occupania of
tho epert~ant shall hevo reed, suall conierm to, anc will atide voy
the by-lews and all prijioug house rouls in force during occupancy.
O NER APrLIC..:T
C NER APPLICiics
The applicsnt is tceroby apprevod for ro-:bership in tho #ssoeistioa
by tno bourd of Directors of the 1901] «voring Avo. Cocrorative “ss07.
pet hiaent eervt:c:
16 APPENDIX 2
1901 WYOMING AVENUE COOPERATIVE MUTUAL CWNERSHIP CONTRACT.
This contract cade in the City of Washington, District of
Columbia, this l‘tiday of arril yly © by aod between
1901 Wyoming Avenue Cooperative Associations Thereicafter called the
"Association”) and Betty J, incereen
» & Dember of such Associations
(hereinafter called the “Member ).
WITNESSETH that the Association and the Member do mutually agree
as follovs:
1. Membership Fee: Tne Association hereby acknowledges the pay-
ment by the henber of the sum of ove hundred fifty dollars ($150.00)
and in consideration thereof extends all rights and privileges of
membership to the Member.
2. Sale and Purchase of Fervetual Use: Subject to all of the
provisions in this Contract and for tne Purchase Pr‘ce hereinafter set
forth, the Association hereby agrees to sell to the Member, and the
Member bereby agrees to purcoase from the Association, tse right of
perpetual use and eojoyment (hereinafter called the "Perpetual Use")
of Apartment oumber 33 in 1901 Wyoming Avenue, N.wW., Washington,
D.c.
3. Delivery of Perpetual Use: The Association agrees to deliver
euch Perpetual Use to the member, pursuant to the provisions of a
certain Purchase and Sales Contract whereunder it acquired legal title
to the premises 1901 Wyoming Avenue, N.W. The Association also agrees
to deliver the right to occupancy of said apartment oumber
subject however to whatever right any tenant of sucn apartment may have
under the landlord and tenant law in the District of Columbia.
&. Purchase Price: The member agrees to pay as the Purchase Price
os'se ox. 2. a. id ae
for we frefpewuss Yor ic ous C2 +--+)
meee owes
ea. Dow ot: The member agrees to pay $ as
@ dow payment on the purchase price.
b. Monthly Prin¢ival end Interest Payments, ist Trust: The
member agrees to pay bis proporticoate soare of ast trust. The pro-
portionate amount for apartcent be The
3 °
monthly payments for apartment ourber are 3 , includisg
interest and principal at the rate ~ per ancum. Subsequent paymeots
eball be made on or before the saiteines, ~Seraehain thereafter.
ce. The of the deferred purchase y is secured by
>
@ collateral so the Perpetual Use oo Apartzent aod
is spayable at $ per month which includes sqterest and
princi at the rate of per anoum until peid and payable
|
5. Operating payments: The Member agrees to make the operating
payments as long as this Coctract is in effect to cover his estimated pro
rata cost of the Operating Services, Utilities and Reserves to be provided
by the Association as described in paragraph 6 herein. From the date
of the delivery of the Perpetual Use, the Member shall pay an operating
payment on the 15% day of each ami every month, so long as this
contract is in effect. The member agrees that this is only an estimated
figure and is subject to change, and can be increased or decreased
by @ majority of the Board of Directors or at ap Anoual Meeting or
Special Meeting of the members, if necessary, to meet increased or
Gecreased operating expenses. he estimated monthly operating
expenses of apartment oumber 22. is 134.0.
ER RD at A SND SNE oe A MED Oe Re
17
6. Application of Fovrents: The member agrees to make the
payzects requires urcer pars, rupas 4 apd 5 hereio at one time wheo due.
Acy balance of iotere.t acd operutiis Payments recaioing uppeid shall
be added to ani teccme part of the ucpaid balance of the purchase price
due to the Association ard bear interest therewith.
7. Occupancy: The Member shall own and use the dwelling covered
by this contract as a privute dwellio: and may eojoy the use, in cocmos
with all of the other centers cf the Association, of all cosmzunity
property and facilities of the Project, so loug as be remains a Meoter
of the Association, ani abides by all of the terms of this contract.
The gember may sublease bis iwelling, provided that his tenant be first
approved by the directors of the Association.
8. Operatior Services, Utilities and Reserves: The Association
sball (a) provide cecessary casagenest and aizioistration of the project
(>) pay or provide for the payment of all taxes and assessments levied
against the project, (c) procure and pay or provide for the payment for
Yire insurance on the project (including insurance on the Member's
Dwelling but not on his personal property) (4) provide and pay for
water,heat,refrigzration and electricity, in reasonable amounts, (e) set
up reserves for contingencies, end (f) provide and pay for all necessary
current repairs, maintenance ani replacements of project property including
the Member's dwelling, except tnat tne Memter shall be responsible for
all interior repairs and all ioterior painting and decoration. If the
Member does not make such interior repairs and provide such interior
painting and decorating io a manner satisfactory to the Association,
it may have any work perforred which io its judgment is necessary and |
charge the cost to tne Member. If such chirge is not paid when it accrues,
it eball be added to and become part of the unpaid balance of the Purchase
Price due the Association aod tear interest therewith.
9. Sale to Others: If the Member wishes to leave the Project,
the Memher mav sel] his Pernetual l/se and assicn this contract to anv
persoo accepted io writios by ihe Boerd of Directors of the Ass
Such person shall thereafter enjoy the privileges of and be subject to
all of the obligations of, the Member under this Contract.
mamta ting
SVS ee ove
10. Transfer by Gift or Icneritance:: The member may transfer his
Perpetual Use or acy interest unier this Contract by Gift, bequest,
assignment or otherwise to anyote, provided thet if such Perpetual Use
or interest is so transferred to a person other than a member of the
member's family, such person shall not be permitted to occupy the premises
Without the approval of the Association.
ll. Termination of Contract: In the event of default by the
Member of any payweots or charses required usder this contract, or
violation of any other provisicos hereof, the Association may terminate
this contract upon Ten (10) days written notice to the Member. The
Association may terminate this Contract upon thirty (30) days written
potices if its Board of Directors by a vote of four-fifths (4/5) of all
the directors shall determine that the Member is for any reason undesirable
as @ resideot in the project subject to the Member's rights in paragraphs
7,9, and 10.
12. The member agrees upon the termination of this contract to
quit and surrender the dvelliog occupied by him to the Association.
The Member, for himself and any successor by operation of lav or other-
Wise hereby waives apy and all notice and dezand for possession as provided
by the laws of the District of Columbia.
0 a i i ce
PulED Sabha a aA Ri aie Ot
is 50 >a
ring RF OE ec AE LTO DML PRD
18
13. Observance of Mutual Ownership Principles: The Member
Covenants that ne snall preserve uni promote tie mutual ownersnip
principles upon which tie Association has been founded, ebide by the
Rules aud Regulations of the Association, and by his active coopera-
tion with its other cccters briug about for himself and his co-cerbers
@ bigh stacdard in hoce and community cooditions. Under the Articles
of Associatico, the property rights of members are unequal asd shall
be determined by the initial valuation, which for Apt. 33 is
$ 10,50... ‘ ile taal
1k. Feaceable Possession: If the Member makes the payments
berein requirec and periorms all of the conditions and agreements of
this contract the Association covenants that at all times while this
contract remains in full force and effect, the Member may peaceably
have and enjoy the sole use and benefit of the apartrent herein above
described, and may enjoy, in common with all other members of the
Association, the use of all Community property and facilities of the
Project, provided, hovever, that the Association shall have a right
upon reasonable notice to the member to inspect the premises occupied
by such menber.
15. Mo representations other than those contained in this
contract, the by-laws, and the charter shall be legal or binding
om the Association.
IN WITNESS WHERECF, The parties hereto have caused this Contract
to be signed and sealed on the date and at the place first above mentioned.
1901 WYOMING AVENUE COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
Borez md, L772 dh da ASEM.)
- tty Sa/\dndermam
(SBAL)
19 APPENDIX 3
BY-LAWS
vr
1901 WYCMING AVENUE COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
Article 1 - Mame ani Location
The name of this Association is 1901 Wyoming Avenue Cooperative Association.
It ie @ non-profit Association without capital stock or shares, established pur-
Suant to and under the District of Columbia Cooperative Association Act, Title 29
Chapter 8 of the Code of Lave of the District of Colurbia.
Article 2 ~ Purpose
As eet forth in ite Articles of Association, this Association is not organized
for pecuniary gain but for the following purposes:
&. The 1901 Wyoming Avenue Cooperative Association is formed to acquire,
own, hold, build, manage, operate, sell, lease, pledge, mortgage, or othervise dis-
pose of housing of all kinds and appurtenant facilities for the mutual benefit of
ite members.
b. To provide on a non-profit basis, such community and other facili-
ties, services or benefits as may be necessary or convenient for the welfare of its
members and the usefulness of said Association.
¢. ‘Ip pursuance of said purposes the Association shall enter into an
eppropriate agreement for the acquisition of 19Cl Wyoming Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. (bereinafter called the "project”) as its initial acquisition.
Article 3 - Directors and Officers
Section 1. The affairs of the Association shall be managed by a Board of
Directors composed of five persons. Except as to the first Board, whose members
@re designated in the Articles of Association or are elected by those so designated
nd vho shal) serve until the Piret anmiel meetinn a6 tha mnebaee 22 nest at ise
SSSCSSSCTS Git elected and stil quality, eacn director snail be elected by memoers
@t the regular annual meeting and hold office until bis or her successor is elected
and shall qualify, subject to the provisions of these By-Lave.
Section 2. At the first annual meeting of the members, all Directors shall
be elected for a term of one year and each Director shall be @ member of the Associ-
ation. No compensation, remuneration, or any payzent of @cy kind, or in any form,
shall te paid to any Director for his services as such, unless compensaticn or re-
muneration be so voted to @ Director or Directors at a special or annual meeting
of the members.
Section 3. Any director or other officer of the Association may resign at
any tire. § resignation shall be made in writing, and shall take effect at the
time specified therein or if no time be specified, at the time of its receipt by
the President or Secretary. The acceptance of a resignation shall not be necessary
to make it effective.
Section 4. The officers of the Association shall consist of a President,
serve as Chairman of the Board of Directors, a Vice President who shall
cerve in the absence cf the President, both of whem stall be members of the Board
of. Directors, and @ Secretary and a Treasurer. The Board of Directors shall elect
the aforesaid officers after the meeting of the members, vbich should be held
within five (5) days after each annual meeting of the members. Said officers shall
bold office until the first meeting of the Board of Directors following the next
@ucceeding annual meeting of the members of the Association or until their succes-
sors eball have been elected and shall qualify.
Section 5. When, for any reason, @ vacancy on the Board of Directors occurs
during term of office of @ director, the vacancy shall be filled by the re-
maining directors, not later than the next succeeding meeting of the Board, by
electing @ member of the Association vbo shall serve urtil the next annual meeting
of the Association. When, for any cause, @ vacancy occurs in the office of an
officer of the Association before said officer's term has expired, the vacancy
sball be filled by the Board of Directors, not later than the next succeeding
meeting, by electing a person to serve for the remainder of the unexpired term or
until his or her successor shall have been elected by the Board of Directors and
eball have qualified.
Section 5a. Should one or more directors give notice of intended absence
from any schedu meeting or meetings of the Board of Directors, a quorum of
—F
sare ch tt it aE asian ae
20
-2-
regular Board members may extend the voting privilege of the absent member or
members to the Treasurer, the Secretary, or any qualified chairman of a committee
who is a member of the Association, for the period of such absence.
Section 5b. The Board of Directors shall appoint such committees as it deems
mecessary to assist it in carrying cn specific duties or to study and advise it
0m specific problems.
Section 6. A majcrity cf the members of the Association present at any
regular or special meeting duly called may remove any Director or officer for cause
effecting the ability or fitness cf the Director or officer to perform his duties
upon specific written ccmplaint previously filed witn the Secretary of the Associ-
@tics, signed by the member or Director making the complaint, acccmpenied by a
petition signed ty at least five (5) members requesting the consideration of said
complaint ty the memtership. Within five (5) days of receipt of said compleint and
petition, the Secretary of the Association shall give ten (10) days' notice in
writing of the time, place, and object of such meeting to the members and to the
Director or officer against whom the complaint is made, said notice to be accon-
panied by a copy of the complaint. Such Director or officer shall be given an
Witnesses in regard to the complsint. If a Director be removed under the provisions
of this section, the members shall at the same meeting or at an adjourned meeting
elect person to fill the y thus < ted for the remainder of the unexpired
term. If an officer be removed under the provisions of this section, the Board of
Section 1. The Board of Directors in its corporate capacity shall exercise
all the powers of the Association and make neceesary rules and regulations not
inconsistent with the lav, the Articles of Association, or these By-Laws; and no
Director in his individual cezacity shall attempt to deal with mezbers of the
Association, employees, or cthers in behalf of the Ascociation unless authorized
te do go by the Board of Directors.
Section 2. The Board of Directors my earpoint, discharge, and fix the duties
6 Of the moneger and of such ezployees, a<“srmeys, and agents as it
may deem necessary to carry on the business of the Association. Such appointees
meed not be members cf the Association. Provided, however, the members at 6
@pecial or annual meeting by & majority vote my discharge or set the salary of
agent or exployee so explcyed by the Directcr.
Sect
as
ion 3. The Board of Directors shall meet at least monthly at a regular
by the Ecard cf Directors. Special meetings cof the Board cf
be beld upon the call of the President or Vice President or upon
ty of the members of the Board of Directors to
President. Notice regular or special mee<ings sball be in writing and be
mailed or ctherwise delivered to each Director by the Secretary at least three (3)
) days before the meeting. Notice of every special
ject of such meeting, and no business other than that
be transacted.
a” Section 4. The Board of Directors shall select one or more banks to act as
G@epositories of the funds of the Association and determine the manner of receiving,
Gepositing. and disbursing the funds of the Association and the fc=m of checks
@od the person or persons by whom the same sball be signed when not signed by the
Treasurer, as provided herein. In every case the bank or banks selected sball be
— & member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporstion or the successor thereof.
Section 5. The Board of Directors shall require the Treasurer, Manager, and
every acting as officer cr employee of the Association and handling
Association funds and securities amounting to $1,000 or more, in any one year, to
be covered by adequate bonds as determined by the Board, and said bonds to be
furnished by responsible bonding ccmpanies as approved by the Board, at the expense
of the Association. The Board may also require the bonding of other employees and
officers.
i
|
RE
g
a
Article 5 - Mesbership and Rights Thereunder
Section 1. Membership shall be open to all applicants approved by the
Board of Directors, ami the acceptance of any one for membership shall rest solely
with the majority of the Board of Directors and there sball be no appeal from the
Board's de-ision.
Section 2. The joint ownership cf «6 mextership interest by busband end
wife or otoer adult mexbers cf a family with right to survivorship shall be
SA Te eS en ERSTE
-3- j
permissitile, othervise membership interest rust be owned and controlled by an in-
@ividual natural person. In joint ownership cf a mecbership it will carry only
Section 3. The Board of Directors shall consider the mcral character ari
the financial stility of all applicants for mertership, and the Board of Directors
sclely shall arpreve cr reject Gil such applicants and there is no epreas frcez
their majority decision. The Board of Directors will extend membership to all
epplicants they approve.
Section 4. Each applicant for mentership in this Association as a condition
of membership shall: (1) supply fer the information cf the Board such dsta as it
sball deen ecsential and (2) agree in writing to abide by the By-Laws and all rules
and regulations of the Associations.
Secticn 5. The merbership fee for new members shall be one bundred and
fifty dollars ($150.00) for each dvelling unit. A @velling unit is here definei
@s one of the original numbered units at the time the Association vas organized.
The certificate fee shall te one dollar ($1.C0) and no certificate of nenbership
sball te issued until such fees Lave been paid. However, transfer ty inheritance
or gift to a member of the immediate family shall be exempt from the membership
and certificate fees. Each Certificate of Membership in the Association shall be
Bumbered in order and shall be entered in the Membership Book of tke Associetion
as it is issued. Each Certificate cf Membership shall exhibit the member's nare,
recite his membership in the Asscciaticn, contain a statement of the requirements
of Section 6, Article 8 hereof, have rlainly printed om the face therecf the word
“Mon-Transferable," and be signed by the President of the Association and bear the
seal of the Association attested by its Secretary.
Section 6. Certificates of Membership are not transferable. ne who becomes 4
P by succeeding to the rights of a member of this Association 4
and who becomes a member of the Associaticn shall be issued @ new Certificate cf ;
» Upon péyment of the membership and certificate fees. ’
Section 7. Merbership in the Association shall cease upon termination of the ;
Contract.
Snceter O. Aho Meen® <0 Sewesters ors Bt scr fous cAbS 3 S2icc® 2ct, 822°
such member has violated any of the provisions of these By-Laws, or that he has
been guilty of conduct detrimental to the Association, or that he is for any reason
given him by the Board upon his written request for such heering filed
th Secretary of the Association, his meatership, Mctual Gmership contract,
and any other contract with the Association may be terminated by the affirmative
vote of four of the members of the Board.
Article $ - Duties of Officers
Section 1. The President shall:
(1) Act as presiding officer at all meetings cf the Association and cf the
Board of Directors;
(2) Call special meetings of the Board cf Directors, and of members of the
Association;
(3) Sign, with the Treasurer, all checks, contracts, promissory notes,
deeds, and cther instruments on behalf of the Association, except those which the
Board of Lirectors specifies may be signed by other Fersons.
(4) Perform all acts and duties usually required of an executive to insure
that all orders and resolutions of the Board are carried into effect, and he shall
be ex-officio a member of all standing committees.
Section 2. The Vice President shall:
(1) Act ae presiding officer at all meetings of the Association and of the
Board of Directors when the President is absent;
(2) Im the absence of the President, perform all cther acts or duties
ordinarily required of the President;
(Cl twee ks i oP
waits 6.6
Bicws what ay Medd te
(3) and such other duties as directed by the Board of Directors.
Section 3: Should the President and the Vice President be absent from any
meeting, the Directors shall select from their pumber @ person to act as Chairman
of the meeting.
Section 4. The Secretary shall:
(2) Attend all (regular or special) meetings of the members of the Associa-
tion and cf the Board of Directors and keep all records and minutes of proceedings
thereof cr cause the same to be done;
(2) Bave the custody cf the corporate seal which shall be
instruments as may require it and thereupon shall te attested by
by the signature of the Treasurer;
(3) Attend to all correspondence on tehalf of the Board, issue notice cf
meetings, and prepare the regular quarterly statements cf the affairs of the
Association;
(&) Keep the Membership book and receive all applications for edmissicn to
meabership and present such spplications to the Board et its next regular meeting;
(5s) Pursue such other duties as the Board of Directors may determine and on
all occasions, in the execution of his duties, act under the superintendence, con-
trol and direction of said Board;
(6) Bave custody of the minute books of the meetings cf Directors and mem
i See eee See eee oe aS See Se ES See See
Section 5. The Treasurer shall:
(1) Attend all meetings cf the Association and the Board of Directors;
(2) Receive such sums cf money as may be paid into his bands for the account
of the Asscciation and disburse funds as may be ordered by the Board, taking
earn Tobere for toch lie see, ee 2s Ses Se Seber awsto:
contracts, lesses and other irportant documents pertaining to the business of the
Association which be sball keep.
(3) Supervise the keeping of accounts cf all the financial transactions of
the Asecciation in docks belonging to the Association and deliver such books to
bis successor. He shall prepare and distribute to all mesbers cf the Board at
least ten days before each annual meeting of the mexbers and vbenever else re-
§
|
:
b
E
:
|
(5) Sign as Treasurer all checks, and, with the Presidext, sign all con-
tracts, promissory notes, deeds, and cther instruments on bebalf of the Associations,
except those which the Board of Directors specified aay be signed by other fersons;
(6) Purtish the Association with indemnity bond against loss for such
amount as may be determined by the Board of Directors, at the expense of the
Associatics;
(7) Perform such cther duties as may be required of him by the Associstico
or the Board of Directors.
Article 7 - Duties of r
Section 1. ‘The duties of the Manager shall be:
(2) fo manage ani conduct the business cf the Association in accordance
with the general policies and authorization cf the Board cf Directors end/or the
@uly passed moticns of the members at « special or annual meeting of the seater
ship after due notice bas been given the manager.
(2) fo engage and discharge the employees of the Association subcrdizste
to bim in accordance with euthority given by the Board of Directors;
23
(3) ‘To cause accurate books tc be kept of the business of the Association
ané to sutmit the same, together with all files ani rés and inventcries, and
other informstion pertaining thereto, for inspection et any time by tne Bard of
Directors or by auditor appeinted by the Board, certified public accouxtents
appointed by the Board or auditing committees of the Association.
Article 6 - Meetirss of Mesbers
Section 1. The regular annual meeting of the members shall be beld on the
last Wednesday in January at such time and place as designated by the Board of
Directors, at which tire, in addition to transacting the general business of
the Association, Directors and members of standing and special committees shall
be elected and reports given upon all matters affecting the Association. Nothing
berein shall be construed to prevent the election ty the members of other com-
mittees at other regular or special meetings cf the mezbers.
Section 2. Special meetings cf the members shall be called by the President
whenever he shall deem it necessary cr as directed by Resolution of the Board cf
Directors or within five (5) dsys of receipt by hir cf @ petition signed by at
least seven members addressed to the President and zailed or otherwise delivered
Gays and nct more than ten (10) days before the meeting. Notice of every special
sball state the object of such meeting, and no business cther than that
specified in said notice shall be transacted thereat. Whenever any notice is
required by these By-Laws to be given, perscnal notice is not meant unless cther-
&@ quorum for the transaction of busiress at any meeting of the Association. If
have been called auch meeting mes oer Ah Toss LS sk Leet Seema el, ve ;
@2journed fru time to time by a maj-rity of members present. If notice cf such
@djourned meeting is sect to the mexters, such notice containing & statement of
failed for lack cf
of
G
R
§
i
&
!
;
ih
The parliamestary procedure for conduct of all meetings shall be governed by
Robert's Rules of Order (Revised).
Section 1. Dwelling units and cther services and necessities shall be made
members of the Association et no prcfit to the Associaticn.
charges therefore as determined by the Bosrd of Pirectors or by ® gajcrity
of the members at « special cor annual meeting of the meabers shall te only
4¥
Dicin
Te ee
24
ote
sufficient to enable the Association to meet its property-purchase amortization
Payments, pay fixed and cperating expenses and build up a general reserve for
contingencies and special reserves to take care of msintenance and repair, vacan-
cies, and the repurchase of equities ‘rem withdrawirs rembers. In the event there
shall be received in any one year funis in excess of the above listed expenses,
such savings shall be returned to the members by @ reduction in operating assess-
ment for the ensuing year.
Section 2. Upon a member's withdreving from membership in the Association
and leaving the community for employment elsewhere or for other walid reascns or
causes, said member ray sell and transfer his or her net equity, if any, and
cccupancy rights to the Association cr to ancther under the terms of his Mctual
Ganership contract with the Association, subject to the limitations that a pur-
chaser and transferee other then the Association shall first be approved by the
Association to take said member's place in the dwelling unit vacated.
Section 3. Approval of the Board is required for the use of a dwelling unit
a piace of business. Any cember who shall conterplate using his apart-
mt as @ place of business shall first secure the approval of the Board, and such
members may be subject to additional maintenance charge to be determined by the
Board, but not more than one-half the normal maintenance charge.
Article 10 - Auditing
Section 1. A committee of three (3) persons shall be chosen from among the
members of the Association by the Board of Directors to serve as an auditing con-
mittee until the first annual meeting of the members of the Association. There-
after said committee shall be elected by the members of the Association at their
avtiele 11 . Piaral Veer
The fiscal year of this Association shall be January 1 to December 31.
Article 12 - Seal
concentri-
reon the name cf the Association. Said seal may be used by causing it,
or @ facsimile thereof, to be impressed or affixed or reproded, or cthervise.
Article 13 - Lost Certificate cf Membership
The Board of Directors may direct a new Certificate of Membership to be issued
for the same cost as the original in place of any certificate theretofore issued by
the Association alleged to have been lost or destroyed, upon the making of an affi
Gavit of that fact by the person claizing the certificate to be lost and the per-
further evidence as the Board
may require. ‘The new certificate shall be plainly marked “Duplicate”.
Article 15 - Amendments
These By-Lavs cay be amended by « two-thirds vote cf the mambers present and
voting (there being a quorum presert at the time the vote is taken) at ary regular
or special meeting subject to the same limitations and prohibitions as to subject
matter as these set forth in the provisions cf the Certificate of Associaticn vith
refererce to amending the Certificate cf Association. Amendments may be propoted
by the Board of Directors or by petition signed by at least ten members containing
the exact text of the proposed amendment or amendments, filed with the Secretary
of the Asscciaticn, who shall mail or otherwise deliver notice therecf to all men-
bers not less than three (3) days before amendments shall be voted upon.
As Amended, Decester 8, 1954.
By Order.
Board of Directors.
25 APPENDIX 4
TRE 1QOL WYCMING AVENE COOPESRALIVE ASSCCIATION
HOUSE RULES AND REGULATIONS
The rollowing House Rules ond reculstices are put roreard by the Boara cf
Directors of tne LOl wyomime .wesue Cooperative Assotiaticu for the mutucl tez<-
fit of all wno l.ve in the Dbu.liang. It is our nope tnat ell residents w.1l cc-
Operate in these matters in order thet tne Du.ldicg may be @ pleasant, attract ve
end safe plece vor all cr us to live. Anyote huvirs any curtaer suygestious or
Comments 1S invited to submit tue swe in writing to the Board of D-rectors.
I Manavement
1. The Board of Directors wisies to call attention ef Association members
to the followins resolut.on wnich was approved by a majority vote of menters et
& meeting neld on Dec. 14, lyse.
“Any nember 2 days late (exceptia: Saturaays, Sundays, and holidays)
in making his monthly payments snall be assesseu a fice of $1.00. For
each 30 days 1c akrears a 35.00 penalty shall te imposed.”
2. Residents must contact the Manager for any and all services required of
employees of the Associatioc In gezeral, esployees will not be available to d=
more than make sicple adjust. *s to equipmest. If materials are requirec, they
must be supplied by residents. Repa:rs are the respocsibility of residents and
employees should not be callei on for such work as this would interfere wits
their regular duties.
3. Resideats should notify the Manager when exy repairs or alteraticns are
made which require shutting off the electricity or water.
4. = Residents having outside ccntractors do work in their apartments must
have said contractors clean up and haul away all trash and rubbish incident to
the work. Otherwise the Association will have to bill the residents for any.
additional charges made by the regular tras= collector.
—ia-— + Seren V ins an--
+ <4
e se
=. ° = -- - -* - = ,. 7. -
5. Residents Gust cussult wae Dsar2 s
radio or TV antenae on roof or elsewzere.
"%
ie)
a
0
°
&
1)
a
ual
6. The services of an exterminator have been engaged by the Association and
are available to residents at no extra cost. Residents should notify the Manager
When such services are needed.
7- Residents must not attempt to operate house engineering equipmert such
as Elevators, veotilator fans, maic switenes, or the heating plant. Tampering
with therrostats, meters or safety devices wll Sut lect offenders to the rigors
of the law and the liability for apy damage resulticcs from same.
8. The house telephone in the Manager's office is for the transaction of
Associaticn business. Personal imcczing calls will be received and messages taker
which must be called fcr or will be ielivered With the next mail. Tenants will oc:
be called to the telephone to take incoming personal calis.
9. Loud or unnecessary noises, such as those cccurring from parties, radios,
television, pianos or otner musical -nStrumests, ani nard shoes on bare flocrs
Must be curtailed between the hours sf 11:00 P-G. and c:30 a.n.
10. Because of numerous comple-cts, the Board of Directors finds it necessary
to rule that no sew dogs shall te noused in the Spartreat; present dogs are per-
mitted but shall not be replacei upe2 the.r demise or disposal.
ll. The following forms of insurance are carried by the Association but do
mot cover contents of an individual rember's apartrent:
a. Owners, Landlords, aci Tenents (public liability)
b. Fire and storm coveree (on cuzlaing)
c. Workren'@® compensatics
a. Boiler insurasze
Members are adv.sei to carry fire anz extenued insurance on their furniture and
nousehold cocds. t 43 recorrenced that merbers al-o carry liability insurance,
Since they ure liaodle for any damace done tc a Deiy:.0er's apartment because or
faulty plutbing ani acts o. carelescress. The Assc-iation,nowever, is respons.bdle
for any o-mage t> apartmen:: cacce4 ~y taul-y pluet.m%, W.Tiig, etc., mot atceicitise
eens sie ire
tre tu “Five +) any apa
REE Peek AM Md al AN AEA Le Valet isco as
Ve, DO ale dtl
7)
DM ew tS ANB bio ALR oer AAAS Ad ate M a td SUB ASR Gh IR A eh ANIA ble tld tem FN aint lh IN RE Ai cli AE OT A CLEAR AB 0 td ABS AB i Me Mls Go wade
BE
HOUSES AULES AND REGULATIONS
II HOUSEKEEPING
12. Garbage and refuse sre collected each morn:ce except Sunday beginnimg at
6:00 a-m. It will also be collectea Scturdsy even: beg.ucing at 7:00 p.m. The
fclluwinge rules apply to gartae aud refuse:
e. Be not leave in mall over nicht
bd. Do not place iz nall closets or cther concealed portions of the
building
c. Place wet carbace in water-t.cht containers
é. Garbage and trash must te kept separste
e. Broken ¢lass must be wrapped separately and be clearly marked
so the janitor will tsxe care not tc cut aisself.
f. Qnly garbaze, sot papers, etc., shall be put in the garbage can
Outdoors near the loa:icg platforms
13. Residents are requestei to selp keep halls, lobby, and driveway free
frome matches, c.igarett stubs. and otner debris. Send ash trays are lccated near
the elevator and are to be used for <hat purpose only.
1’. Residents are required by city ord:nsance to refrain from throwing any-
thing out cf windows, this includes shaking of rugs or mops.
15. Debris must oct be left on or thrown off the roof garden or any other
part of the roof.
a. Bottles, cacs, or other debris should be removed by individuals
taking them to the roof
b. Cigarettes must be properly extinguished before leaving the roof
and dead stubbs placed in recepticles put on roof for this purpose.
16. It is requested that in rearranging or moving the furniture on the roof
that you dc sot drag it across the rocf but pick it up, this is in consideration
of those living on the flocr immediately below. :
72 Meee 2 atm wee - 23 OF -- eee ++ =e ee ee ee eer ee be -3---+
---* wees se > ~ : - .
-- -a---
=. -- = ore —- =. -
18. Laundry should oct be hung io windows to dry.
III Utilities (Water, lights, and heat)
19. Is order to keep operating expenses down, everyone is requested not to
waste water or electricity. Leaking faucets should be repaired promptl. The
Manager will recommend a qualified plumber or you cay call one of your ow choice.
2. Fuse boxes ssould be supplied with the 15 ampere size of fuses or fuse-
trons. If fuses blow frequently, residents should advise the Manager so that proper
imspection cas be made to locate the source of the trouble.
21. The heating plant is a low-pressure, one-line steam-vapor system and
requires that:
a. Radiators be turned ccmpletely on or off to avoid water binding
and water lears at tne radiators
b. Air relief valves release trapped a:r freely, but no water
c. Stut-off valve end of the radiators snould be 1/16 -inoch lower
than the air relief valve end
The most cogmocn troubles are:
@. Formation of rust or sedimert in shut-off valves making it ¢ifficult
te shut radiator off completely wnica leads to lea ase
v. Clogging of a:r relief valves leavice entrapped air wnich mares it
difficult for the rad.ator to heat properly
The managetent can nave cold rad.ators examined for simple adjustments and can
recommend a qualified plucber .f repairs are ceeded
22. Residents are warned to be on the looxout ic their apartmcts icr steam
or water leaks which s.¢nt cause damage to seignboricg apartments aod for wnicn
they can be neld lable.
DAE TE rts ad 9 27
Me a Sih REE ENS BS
PPE BEIT Bs
27
BCUSE RULES AND REGULATIONS
quested upcs leaving their apartzents to make certain
that ligats and other electrical devices are turned
are locked.
23. Residents are re
that all faucets are stut off,
off, and toat their front doors
24. Residents vhen using the laundering equirrent are requested to follow
carefully the instructices posted on the wall above the machines.
25. All persons using the laundering equiprent are requested to remove tbeir
laundry from the wasbers or dryer immediately upon ccepletion of the washing or
G@rying cycles, thereby precluding the cecessity of others removing their belongings
ip order to use the equirrent.
26. Residents vho use the dryer are asked to cake sure that the lint box
Covering the air outlet at the upper right of the door is clean. The box can be
Cleaned by unhocking and shaking out the lint.
27. ersons using the wash
machines are clean on exterior bef
ing cachines are requested to see that these
ore leaving.
Iv. Fire Hazards
Stored in locked closets or
aks, should be kept tightly
26. Inflamzable cleaning fluids gust not be
storage bins. They should be inspected often for le
stoppered, and should be kept avay from heat.
29. Cigaretts should be properly extinguished AT ALL TIMES. Do not Place
any burning cigarett butts in garbage cans.
x. Fire doors leading to elevators and stair vells must be kept closed
4@ ALL TIMES to conform to District Fire Regulations. Violations might endanger
both lives and property. A reported infraction will result io higher insurance
Fate of both the building and individual possessions. 7
ws.
peter
az
racks exce
4 ab gewe -——-
tee
pt in the event of
ftacser us) cals amt ar] one oc &- «20... 2
weCe Cees “’fco TSF ws! art ss
fire or for proper inspection and recharging.
=.
from their
32. Residents are warned
TiI-20 and not to use any substi
Parking
33- There is ap area marked
not to use larger sized fuses than are required in
tutes, such as a penny.
v.
off for parking of authorized ower residents
who pay for this privilege. Assignment of specific space is made twice yearly
following dravings by lct. The loading platform zone is reserved for losding and
unloading only. Violation of parking regulations is subject to police action.
Revised October 1, 1953 by:
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
SP ewteerree ees rs one es 2
Bitcan ad
28 APPENDIX 5
Superior Court of the District of Columbia
613 G Sereet, Northwest — 4th Floor
Telephone: 629-4292
SP O/ i eee ae = Bx, | 62,
DC. “2
4901 A’ gimary lee. a
Vy ied AL. Laeld 4G,
ray peotee SOP “0 &
ae PF CA 5670-71
Civil Action File No.
You are hereby summoned and required to file an Answer to the attached Complaint, either per-
sonsity or throcgh an attorney, within twenty (2U) days after sereice of tars summons wen von, ox-
elusive of the day of service. ;
The Answer must be filed in Room 401, 613 G Street, N. W., between 9:00 am and 4:30 pm
Moadays through Fridays or between 9:00 am. and 12:00 Noon on Saturdays, but not on Sundays or
holidays. On or before the day you file your Answer, a copr of it must be mailed to the attorney
the party piaintiff who is suing you. The Attorney's name and address appear below. If plain-
has no attorney, a copy of the Answer must be mailed to the plaintiff at the address stated on this
IMPORTANT: IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN ANSWER WITHIN THE TIME STATED
FOR THE MONEY DAMAGES OR OTHER RELIEF DENANDED IN THE COMPLAINT. IF
THIS OCCURS, YOUR WAGES MAY BE ATTACHED OR WITHHELD OR PERSONAL PRUOP-
ERTY OR REAL ESTATE YOU OWN MAY BE TAKEN AND SOLD TO PAY THE JUDGMENT.
r aon —— TO OPPOSE THIS ACTION, DQ NOT FAIL TO ANSWER WITHIN THE RE-
QUIRED TIME.
If you wish to talk to a lawyer and feel that you cannot afford to pay a fee to a lawyer, promptly
contact one of the offices of the Legal Aid Society (NA 51161) or the Neighborhood Legal Services
te Room 402, 613 G Street, N. W. for more information concerning places
M BURTON
Clerk of the Court
a
29 APPENDIX 6
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMLIA
613 G Street, M. W., 4th Ploor
Washington, D. C.
1901 Wyouing Avenue Cooperative
associaticn, a corporation
1901 myominy avenue, is. B®.
Washington, 3. C.
Plaintiff
Civil Action
ve.
No.
Betty MN. Allen
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
a/a/a@ betty J. Kencer )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
560 a Street, S. Ww.
Wasaoinagton, db. Ce
and
Richeru P. Allen
$60 M Street, S. WwW,
washingtoa, D. C.
Defendasts
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIP
1. Jurisdiction is based on tiis Court's general’ juris-
Giction by Public Law 91-258 <Sensing 11-037 errsere2 tet oe
1970, and Title 28:2201 of U.S. Code Annotated.
2. That om or about April 15, 1964, the plaiatiff issued
the defendant s Mutual Ownership Contract for the perpetual use of
Apertment 33 at 1901 Wyoming Avenue Cooperative Association 7&8
corporatioa.
3. That the defendaats egrved whea they bec. >
of this cooperative association that they would “abide by the By-
laws and all rules and regulations of this Association’ (Article 5,
Section 4). The defendants also agreed to preserve and promote the
mutual ownership principles upon which the Association was founced,
and to bring about a high standard in home and community conditions.
That the defendants agreed not to use their apartment es a “place
of business” (Article 9, Section 3). That the Board of Directors
on June 9, 1965, pursuant to Article 9, Section 3 of tne By-laws
defined that any apartment rented for three years or core will not
Te
Ve
Boranictos:
30
be consiuered ea residence but will become an netewenetuning in-
vestzent property end tnat an aiditional operating charge of 508
per month will ve charged.
4. That tne defendants have rented their apartment for
more than taree years.
5. Toat the defendants have rofused or neylected to pay
this additional operating clarge.
6. The controversy is whether the plaintiff through its
agent, servants Or employees has the right to terminate the per-
petual use of this apartment since the defendants are not complying
with tne by-laws end ell rules and regulations of this Association?
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays thet the Court adjudge:
l. That the defendeats are not complying with the By-
laws and all rules and regulations of this Association.
2. That since the defendants are not complying with its
By-lews and rules and regulations that their perpetual use of this
apartment be terminated.. ,
3. That tie plalntiZi secover its costs.
4. And for sach other and further relief as may be just
aad proper.
ae s
Attorney for plaintiff
1828 Jefferson Place, WN. W.
Washiagton, Lb. C. 20036
689 2720
1S) Ve Re ee ee oe
31 APPENDIX 7
SUPERIOR COUSP OF THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA
$13 "GQ" Street, Northwest, Fourth Floor
Washington, D.C.
1901 EYCNING AVENUE COCPERATIVE
ASSOCIATION, a corporation
1991 Yyozing Avenue, l.wW.
Washington, D.C.,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action
File No. CAS570-71
-V¥.-
BETTY ?:. ALLEN
ea/t/a Botty J. Mender
550 "M' Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.
and
RICHARD P. ALLZIN
560 "N Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.
; ; Defendsnts.
ANSVER
COMES NOW, the Defendants, BETTY M. ALLE‘! and RICHARD P.
ALLEY, through thelr attorney, to answer the Cocplaiat in this
ection, and respectfully allese:
AS AND POR A FISST
SEPARATE AID DISTINCT DEFENSE
1. This Court does not have jurisdiction in this case.
. AS ATD FOR A S=COND
SEPARATE AID DISTINCT DEFENSE
2. Plsintiff has not stated e cauce of action or clainz
upon which relief can be granted.
AS AND POR A T3IRD
SEPARATE ALD CISTINCT DEFIUSE
‘ 3. Defendants, and eacn of them, deny the allegations in
perasraph “2° of the Coxplaiat, but edait that Defendant,
BETTY M. ALLEN, bofore she married Defencant, RICRAND P. ALL=N,
ané while she was known by and used the name, Betty J. Mender,
@id enter into e Mutusl Oxnership Contract with the Plaintiff
for the use of Apertnent No. 33, at No. 1901 Wyoming Avcnue, N.W.
&. Defendants, and each of then, deny the allegation
(re ttn tn Oris wen Hee
‘ 32
: in perecreph “2,” but admit that Defendant, DETTY i. ALLEN,
3 when ehe became ea member of the cooperative, agrecd to abide
by the Bylaws and all rules of regulation of the escociation,
5 to preserve and promote the outusl ownership principles upon
which the association vas founded end to bring a high standard
ig home end community condition: and not to use her epartzent
as a place of business. Defendants, and each of them, deny
that pursuant to Article 9, Section 3 of the Bylaws, the Board
of Directors, on June 9, 1955, defined that any epartrent rented
for three years or more will not be considered a residence but
will become an income-producing investment property and that
an edditional operating charge of 50% per month will be cherged.
5. Defendants, and each of then, never agreed to any
characterization as incone-producing Lavestnent property” eny
epertoent rented for three (3) years or nore.
6. Defendants, end each of then, deny paragraph "4%" but
e@mit renting Apartuen’ iia. 33 on a sne (1) yeas Leasu, wilh
an Option to buy, to Paul and Florence Martin, who now live at
Apertoent No. 33 on a ronth-to-month lease.
7. Defendants, end cach of them, deny the allegations in
paragreph “5° but admit that they, and each of them, have not
paid the alleged “additional operating charge” since on or about
August, 1979. ;
8. Te alleged additional operating charge” is a penalty
which was never agreed upon by either of the Defendants and
is not justified.
2 9. Defendents, and each of then, deny psrecraph "6."
1o. Plaintirr has been and ie unfairly end unconstitutionslly
: G@lecripinsating agsinst the Defendants, and each of them, in
; the forzation of and isplementation of policies and regulations
of the association. *
li. Paracraph “S” ic a conclusisn 22 law.
Patittsavie.
base
SEES BE Bt AT OE OE ON oo
33
AS AND FORA
FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
AND 4S aD FOR A POUNTT
SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE
‘22. Peragraphs "3" through "10° are repeated and reslleged
as if fully eet forth herein.
13. Plaintiff, who 1s the Defendant in counterclaim, abused
legal process to gain an unfair adventace over the Defendants,
and each of them, who are Plaintiffs in counterclain, to wit,
Plaintiff caused this suit to be instituted as a means of ob-
taining control and poseession of Apartment No. 33 and decrcaeing
the value of the equitable and legal rights of the Defendants,
and esch of them, in Apartment Ho. 33. Plaintiff has so acted
wilfully and with malice. ;
18, As a result of the foregoing actions, Defendants, and
each of then, suffered subsetential physical injury, pein and
suffering, mental and emotional distress, loss of income and :
were subjected to embarrassnent and opprobrium by the menbers E
of the cooperative and the community. {
| 15. Defendants, and each of then, are entitled to conpensa- :
tory dameges in the amount of Ten Thousend Dollars ($10,990.99)
and punitive damages in the amount of Five Thousend Dollars
($5,009.99).
AS AND FOR A
SECOHD COMTINCLAIN {
SEPASATS Ai SISTEIs? DSFCISE
16. Paragrephs °3” through “10” are repeated and realleged
as if fully set forth herein.
17. Plaintiff, Defendant in counterclaim, has and is
interfering wita and in the personel and financial relationship :
between Defendants, and each of them, Flaintiffs in countercle in,
end Paul and Florence Martin, their tenants now living in 3
Apartrent U2. 33. Plaintiff has so ected wilfully and with
malice. .
-_=- |
e cfvabtneoe
34
18. As a result of the foregoing ectione, Defendants, and
eech of then, euffered substantial physicel injury, pain and
suffering, ecntal and enctiorsl dirtress, loss of inccze an¢é
were sudjected to enbarrascecnt end oppro>brium by the gfecters
of the cooperative and the ccomunity.
19. Defendants, and each of them, are entitled to coxmpensa-
tory damages in the amount of Ten Thourand Dollars (£10,020.09)
ené punitive damages in the amount of Five Thousend Dollars
($5,009.90).
WHEREFORE, Defendents pray that this Honoreble Court:
1. _Dismise Plaintiff's Complaint; and
2. Enjoin Plaintiff from abusing legal process; and
3. Enjoin Plaintiff from interfering with and in the
personal end financial relationrhip with Peul and Florence
Mertin; and
&. Award money comages in the emount of Ten Thousand
Ssllars (41%, O09. 9°) ccoresectors derecee end Five Phannend
Dollars ($5,000.90) punitive damages, on the Firct Counterclain;
5S. Award roney canages in the amount of Ten Thousand
Dollars ($10,9C9.5S) cocpenratory camages and Five Thoursend
Dollars ($5,009.00) punitive dazaces, on the Second Counterciain;
6. Award Court corts to the Defendants; and
7. Award to Defendants #11 cocts of litigation, including
attorneys’ fees; and
8. Grent eny relicf this Court may dcem meet, just and
proper. j . are
Dated: _ 2l, aig 3 : Respectfully subzitted,
z MATONIS 4D KUSITCKI
Ja Jrscpa . urants; "7
ge So a a sone
Wachington, D.C. 2: 4
Phone: Fuderel S-2234
35 APPENDIX 8
SUPEPION COURT OF Th DISTRICT OF COLU'DIA
CIVI:. DIVISTH: :
1991 CVO"TEG AVIIIUC COOPURATIVEE
ASSOCIATIA
v. Civil Action .io. 5669-71
MARGARLT D. Ltr
This matter cam: iefore tle Court, sitting in Civil
Calendar Control, on @cfendant's notion for summary
judgment. daving licsrd t!.c arguments of counsel for both
sides, tha Court took the matter under advisenent on
Decerber 2, 1971. .iow, waving more fully considered the
recoré horein and tl.o meroranda of noints and authoritics
submitted Sy both sidns, tic Court i« of tie view that
Gefendant's motion for sursar; judgment stould be granted.
S4fercar. iu @ sijut uncer tre Ofaghival Ownership oon-
tract, paragrach 7, to “subluase ass @wolling”™ without
the vestriction of an inereased operating caarge which
Plaintiff now atterptto ixpose Ly a milateral, yet
indirect, modification of tiit cnntract via its subse-
quently enacted vylaws. Tie pirele evidence rele requires
the Court to anforce the presimpticn “tuae a written
nn ee
contract is the final rovesitory of the auyreenent of the’
ee
partics,”° Luther #illiars, of., tas. v. Jonnson, 229 A.24
163, 165 (D.C. App. 1267).
Pinally, ty erantine defundant's motiou for summary
judemant, &.* Court Jous aot roacs the issue of whether
to fifty peresrt (5%) rental surenarge is arvitrary and
‘eonforeta.le. .
SO OWED.
_ sf
Sir turns Sate
Lecem cr 2", 1371
-
SGC RD PSTN AT A et Raila Mas 86 +
te Oh vee
ob GN i NL OFA
Peeibaticntisiriviv wn ionrintcrietasanbitidi eth atic Ub ese NA i di hd BO
36 APPENDIX 9
SUP "Bas Ce OT TS bTS Shs vO COLMIOL.
CIvti. DIVISIO
1901) “YO INC Wide COOPLEATIVE
ASSECIATIGCN
v. Civil Action 40. 5665-71
MARCALAT DO. LEa
ORLIR
T.i3 matter came before tue Court on plain-
tiff's motion for reoongidcration ef t.: Court's Order
datec Lecurwer 26, 1971, waich sranted defendant's
motion for summary jucq=mont. io-, eter careful ro-
examination of tio ontir. record lwrsin, the Court is
of the view that plairtif£'« motion fer reconaileration
@ust be donied,
faving reafficned tw order granting dafcadant’s
motion for cwrary juiqguwuat anc disuicsing the comlaint
Reroin, tic Court notes that tin nertiest hore -‘Itscute
oaly the resuit of tiat prevines order and aot tio facts
in the record. [ft apowars tyit a trisl vould not oro-
duce aay further facts. Twurelfors, tie gatter is in a
prom’r pecture for a dufinitiv. rulic< on the motion
for awrary jotcrest.
Purthersore, the conurt is of the view thet the
terus of tiv oricinal Wares Contract cannot te
¢rautically rerritten .v serely 4 sajority vot of the
Cooncrativ: sisociaticn. Alt.wuy. yvaracranhs 13 of the
owtract rutuires tie ascoctution's semeuurrs to “avide
by* ite rulos a:é@ ruguleticus, sucs lacguags cannot in
ary Way be construed to ner=i* a conplste rovriting of
a terver'’s vital ororcrty rig’t#, as in thir caceo the
Figat to tuwrlease a dvelliasz vitieout th: rocttriction of
Qe ore wc ete oe
37
an dnereaiecc op >ratioa charges. She Asseciation is frre
to pass revisions te its rulzs as loay as the men:crs'
property rights under the original ownership contract
are not affected therevy. Ctherwise, tha Association
must entcr into mewincful negotiations vith its menters
in ordor to chance the terms of their contracts and
obtzin comoliance with the now terrs.
For the reasoas stated adove, plaintife's
motion to reconsider the order of Necemer 23, 1971,
mutt be denied, Therefore defendant's motion for summery
judqment remains as qranted on that date and the complaint
must he dismissed,
SO OkDrre).
Gabo ge
th.
yy
Wim Murphy, Juca-
WARS 172
bate :
. GSRTIFICKIS UF SE7YICE !
I hereby certify that copies of the forcecyoing
wore mailed to Stuart i. Robeson, -8q., 1828 Jefferson
Place, N.W., “‘lasiinutor, 2. Cc. 20036; anc Martin Shulman,
Eaq., Landis, Cohen, Sinqman ana Tau:, 1910 Sunderland
Placa, ".i., Washington, D. C. 29236; this yg? cay
of March, 1972.
,
Wa Tspay, Jules
tt, ee ee rR ee Sek. we
' = RNG A ERE TUS New
4 38 APPENDIX
SUPERIOR COURT OF TL DISTATIOT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
190] WYOMING AVENUE
COOPLRATIVE ASSOCIATION, A Cozper.tion,
weer Gabe tb POMEL D
Plaintiff -
}
Vv. CA No. 5670-71
Pee eee
BETTY M. ALLEN, aka Betty L. Mender
and
RICHARD P. ALLEN,
os 08 08 68 68 08 08 08 ee oe oe oe
Defenderts
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND CRDER
NTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, a Cooperative Association, in an amended
4 eee for declaratory relief, asks this Court to determine
whether it has the power accoréing to the rules and reculations
ef the Association to exact a monthly <ental surcharge anc,
i upon failure to pay, to terminate the perpetuel use of the
: anartment of the defendants, Richard and Betty Allen.
| Defendants do rot Geny the amount of the unpaid surcharge
($133.96) nor the existence of the rules and requiations
which provide for the surchercs, but deny their liability
to pay it under the terms of their Mutual Ownership Contract.
$ In addition, each defendant has counterclaimed for $20,000.00
compensatory damages and $10,000.00 punitive damages for
physical injury, pein and suffering, mental and emotional
@istress, loss of income, and embarrassment suffered as a
eA BEA Lilie h
result of plaintiff's alleged malicious institution of suit
Rd
to obtain control of the apartment and alleged interference
iv
with the personal and financial relationship of defendants
pats at yd Yh
with their subtenants.
V/ Plaintiff filed its amended complaint on May 6, 1972,
and withdrew its suit for cn additional operating charce
of SOX per month of the rer.tal surcharge on defendant's
apartment.
Poms iviaitiew.ccssns,
@ sere
39
THE ISsur
Paragraph 13 of tiv Mutual Ownership Contract states in
pertincnt part:
The Member covercnts that he shall preserve
and promote the mutual ownership principles
upon waich the Associuticon has been formed,
abice ty the Rules & Resulcticns of the
Association. . .
The sole issue presented to this Court is whether the
«
Plaintiff has the richt to enforce the bylaws, rules and ,
regulations of the Association recarding the monthly rental
2 °
surcharge upon the defendants under the terms of their Mutual
Ownership Contract.
FINDINGS CF FACT
Plaintiff, 1901 Wyoming Avenue Cooperative Association,
is a District of Columbia Corporation anc owns the apartment
building located at the same address. There are fifty-seven
“cooperative apartments" in the building. Purchase of an
arartmert jc made throuch a Mutual Ownershio denne which
is supplemer.tec by the Rules & Reguletious of the Association.
On April 30, 1959, the Association adopted a regulation
at a special meeting of the membership whereby any member
who rented his apartment would have to pay a monthly rental
surcharce of 75 cents per thousend dollers of original valuation.
On April 15, 1964, the defendant, Miss Betty Mencer sicned
a Mutual Ownership Contract by which she purchased the perpetual
use of apartment No. 33 in the Cooperative Association. The
original valuation of this apartment was estimated at $10,500.00.
Miss Mencer lived in her apartment for some time, then married
Richard Allen who moved therewith her. From July 15, 1969,
2/ 75 cents rer thouserd dollars cf original valuation for
any memker who rents his apartment.
3/ A copy of the Mutual Ownership contract is added at the
_end of this Opinion.
deal! Ea Fe esata cM tw ths
oe
Doar siiornicrns aaa LRG PL ee ks BRET Elan 0 bal»
40
to Deeesber 15, 1971, Mr. ané Mrs. Allen, rented thcir apcrtment
te Mr. and Mrs. Paul Murtin. The surcharce, which ccmputcs
to $7.63 a month was paid by defencents until July 15, 1970;
for the remaining 17 months that the Martins occupice their
apartment, cefendants refi. .. to pay the surcharce which
amounts to $133.96.
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS
1. The contractual right of subleasing is not abrogated by
the charging of a modest rental surcherce. ,
2. The defendants are not complying with that regulation of
the Association which charges an appropriate rental surcharce.
3. The defendants waived any objection to the regulation in
question by making payments pursuant thereto. ;
4. The defencants are in default in the amount of $133.96.
S. I£ defendants fail to satisfy this obligation, their.
right of perpetual use and enjoyment of apartment No. 33 may
WO TaSmaneccs Sy the ~copucetive Asseciusis.
DEFENDANTS ' CONTENTIONS
1. Defendants’ interest, as owriers of cooperative unit No. 33,
is a real property interest, or in the alternative, a special
hybrid proprietary interest combining the interest of an
owner of real property, a corporate shareholder and an owner
of a leasehold interest.
2. The Mutual Ownership Contract executed by the defendant,
Betty Mender, on April 15, 1964, is the sole repository of 3
the rights and oblications of the parties.
3. The defendants had no notice of the 1959 House Rule which
recites a monthly surcharge of 75 cents per $1,000.00 original
valuation for members who rent their units.
4. The specific provisions of the Mutual Ownership Contract
granting to the defendants the ownership of apartment No. 33
in perpetuity in paragraphs 2, 3 and 7 of the Mutual Ownership
-3-
ee pcm ic
41
Contract and the richt to sublcase in paragraph 7 governs
over any General provision obligating the defendants to abide
by rules and reculetions not a part of their corporate charter
or bylaws in paragraph 13. Restatement of Contracts, Section
230, Corsacnt : °
S. The monthly surcharge, therefore, is a penalty levied
upon the cefendsants for the exercise of their contractual
right to sublct and is illecal and unenforceable.
6. The monthly surcharge is irrational and arbitrary. :
7. Defendants counterclaim for compensatory and punitive
@amaces on the basis of plaintiff's malicious breach of
contract, abuse of legal process and interferance with
financial relations.
OPINION OF THE COURT
VAP Ieere
It is not apparent to this Court whether the Cooperative
eee IY
Association located at 1901 Wyoming venue should be termed
‘characteristics of both. A condominium is defined as:
(1) individual ownership of a unit or : 3
apartment; 4
(2) an indivicual irterest in certain 4
designated common elements which
serve all the unmats ain the condo-
Minium, and
(3) an agreement among the unit owners
regulating the acministration and
Maintenance of the property.
The general characteristics of a cooperative apartment is
@ multiunit Gwellins in which each resicent has:
(1) an interest in the entity owning the
building, and
4/ Section 236, Sceconéery Pules Aidine Aaplication of
Interpr=tation. . . . (ce) Waere there is. an incon-
Sistency cetween General srovisions anc specific
provisions, the specific prcevisiors ordinarily qualify
the meaning of the general provisions.
-4-
(reteset ete ere ie RT
RU adc
Linkter in
A ISR AIIRSEREEIIORN
42
(2) a lease entitling hin to occupy a particouwesr
apartment within the building. <A cooperative
apartinent has been called Ey one court “a
partners: /p for the mutusl benefit of co- 5/
Operative owners expresscd in corporete ters."
Whot is apparent to this Court is that under either
@cfinition, the mutuality or part:ershin of ownership in the
administration and control of the property predominates.
Section 13 of plaintiff's Mutual Ownership Contract specifically
binds the member to the rules and regulations of the Association.
As this is a case of first impression in this jurisdiction,
. -«
the Court follows the test set out in Recent Statute: The
3
ance To fs Struck Retween The Indeperdence Of Each Unit
Owner & The Necessity For Certain Contro!s Over The Use Cf
* The Units & The Common Areas Presents Another Difficulty,
77 Harvard Law Review 779, 1964:
Statutes uniformly cive the condominium organization
power to adopt bylaws coverning the concuct of tne
unit owners, but there remain cuestions as to the
permissible scope of prohibition and the sanctions
to be invoked in case oz noncompliance.
. It is clear that the Mutual Ownership Contract, here in
_ issue, grants dezendants the perpetual use of apartment Ro. 33
subject to the rules ane regulations st the Association.
Whether those rules are rational is subject to further
scrutiny. This Court deens the assessment of a 75 cent.
SE ee,
surcharge per $1,000.00 of the oricinel valuation reasonable
in light of the weight of the evidence which supports plaintiff's
position. In keeping with the Cooperative's original and
consistent policy which was formulated to provide owner-
occupied dwelling places and to promote the greatest benefit
for owner-members, plaintiff levied a modest monthly rental
surcharge on subletting to encourage the owner to occupy
rather than rent for profit.
The regulation also does not attempt to regulate the mode
of living of the occupants of the building. See Justice Court
5/ Tomokxins v. Hale. 172 Misc. 1071, 15 NYS 2d 854, affd. 259
App. Div. 860, 20 NYS 2d 398, affd. 284, NY 675, 30 NE 2d
721. ;
-5-
= a
the Mutual Ownership Contract by a subsequently enacted bylew
. .
43
Cooperative v. Suncow, 270 KY¥S 2d $29.
The Court, therefore, coneludes thet:
1. Defendants bound the:sclves to ebide by the rules
and regulations of th. 1901 “iyoming Avene Cooperative Associa-
tion when Mrs. Ailen sicrcd the contract in 1964;
2. The bylaws, ru..s and reguletions of the Associction
are relevant end material as to the Mcetual Ownership Cozstzrect
ard the functicn of the Association; ig
3. Tue monthly rental surcharce of 75 cents per $1,000.C3
original valuation wos validly adopted by the members of the
Association on April 30, 1955, for unit owners who sublease
their premises. Dcfcendants' failure to reid or plaintiff's
P
failure to provide the rules for inspection does not relieve
@efcndéants of the burden of abiding by them:
4. That when defendants rented their apartment they knew
of the reculation and paid accordingly for twelve months; . :
S. That for seventeer. months, Gefendants have failed
to pay the assessment, which at the time of trial amounted to
$133.96;
6. That the monthly rental surcharge is reasonable in
view of the Association's consistent policy favoring owrer-
occupants.
The Court cGistincuishes 1$01i Wyomirc Avenue Cosrerative
Association v. Marceret D. tee, Opinion per Murphy, J., decidec
December 28, 1971, motion for reconsideration denied, Mar. &,
1972, {Civil Action No. 5669-71_7 and the case at bar. In
the Lee case, the Cooperative Association attempted to modify
of the majority of the memkers. The new tylaw imposed a 50%
rental surctarce per month, in actition to the basic rertal
surcharge, on memkers who rented for more than three years.
Judge Murphy held that:
.
- , iat oe sk ee
Soleil Seip hese RAN Sagt Sak whe ec es SES NR la a AS CLR PA a es
Se alae i iris iantda tO ea IO EL ena 0k IT
ay
2
<
$
4
a
g
x
R
SO Dt POE PEA TRS BOT EN EIT
44
. « « the teriss of the oricinal ownership
contract cannot be drastically rewrittcn by
werely an. ority vote of the cooperative
Qssocliatac:.. .« « - such lincuuge cannot
in any wey ie construed to perinit a complete
rewriting of a member's vitul property
Sic SSt6 . . .
=n the case at hand, however, plaintiff has withdrawn
its ce..picc:.t for decliretcry relief as to the 50% acditional
operating charge of the month iy rental surcharge. The modest
basic rental surcharce (75 cents per $1,000.00 of origirfal
valuation per mon-n) wes in force when defendant signed
her contract, and wes consistent with the Association's
policy of favoring owner-occupants.
DAMAGES
The Court, in concluding that plaintiff has not breached
its contract with defendants, orders that no damages can be oe
awarded defendants for compensatory or punitive damases. The
‘Court additionaliy notes that even if plaintiff had maliciously
. ‘
hreached the cantract, Cefendants would not be entitled to
punitive damaces, Mcintosh v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 268 A2d
518 (1970). Punitive damages are not assessable in a breach
of contrect action, except when the conduct assumes the character
of a tort, anc defendants have also failed to prove that
plaintizéf's conduct assumed that nature, Den v. Den, 222 A2d
647 (1966). .
In closing, with regard to defendant's countercleim for
Malicious prosecution, the Court does not consider plaintiff's
suit, filed after seventeen months of non-payment and with
evidence of many fruitless efforts at settlement, an abuse of
legal process. ‘
26 ic, thesetere, tte 457 ter of 0, 2 , 1972,
~~
ADJUDGED and ORDERED thet plaintiffs ce and they are hereby
granted juccment against defcndants in the amount of $133.96
and costs, and execution thereon be and it is hereby suspended
-J7-
wars
Wee owe ae
45
until the l4th gay of July, 1672; ond it is further
ANIUDGED and ORDS.LD that defcendants' counterclcim ke
ond they are hereby sismissed.
The Court declines to ruic without prejudice to either
parties richts, en plaintiff's complaint for declaratory
relief as to termination cf whe *utual Ownership Contract
upon Gefenccrts' failure to pay the $133.96. Plaintiff hes
presertce no evicence that the Association has proceeced
accorcing to Percorasch L1 of the Mutual Ownership Contract
regarding termination of Gefencent's perpctual use of
apartment No. 33. Any opinion by this Court would te
premcture at this time. See Sertor v. Arkansas Natural Cas
Corp., 321 U.S. 620, 88 L.Ed. 967, 64 S.Ct. 724.
By the Court,
Saas ou 4 OEP,
W. F'RGN SORRSLL
¥ Sudcge
Copies to:
Stuart H. Robeson, Esq.
Attorney for Pleintifté
1828 Jcffersor Place, XN. W.
Washinctorn, DBD. C. 20036
_ apne Goserh Matonis, Esq.
sttorncy for D2fencants
2603 “F" Street, N. vw.
Washington, D. C. 20009
|
AVANTE Agr RL AMR aT Wid LAS
SRW eT Ne ela OLS UA Hit ee key
eh oe
SEY ea pe aah |
pe lthwi 5
fat Sede Nae
iets di ea sadidedscaann satirist teas acerca
RGB IT OS - .
= Fo LED LIE ESSE SONNET RG BSI sea
46 APPENDIX 11
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
No. 6732
1901 Wyominc Avenve CooperaTIVE ASSOCIATION,
a corporation, APPELLANT,
Vi
MarcareT D. Lee a/K/A Marcaret D. NapPeR, APPELLEE.
Appeal from the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia
(Argued December 14,1972 Decided February 27, 1973)
Stuart H. Robeson for appellant.
B. Michael Rauh participated at oral argument for
appellee.
Before Pair, Yeagley and Harris, Associate Judges.
PER CURIAM: Appellant brought an action seeking
an order that appellee’s “perpetual use” of the apartment
she had purchased in appellant's cooperative “be termi-
nated”. Appellee filed an answer pro se and later her
attorney filed a motion for summary judgment’ which
was granted on December 28, 1971. In response to appel-
lant’s timely motion to reconsider the order of December
28, 1971, the court on March 8, 1972, denied the motion,
1 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(b) which is identical to FED. R. Civ.
P. 56(b).
[205 ]
i EEN wt
A Sh NAGE Cyn SA
47
2
reaffirmed its granting of summary judgment for appellee
and dismissed the complaint.
The judgment entered on the latter motion was not
appealed and is not in issue here. The only issue raised
is the propriety of the trial court’s denial on July 10,
1972, of appellant’s motion to reconsider its order of
June 23, 1972, denying appellant’s motion to amend the
complaint. The latter motion was not filed until May
22, 1972, thirty-five days after the last entry on thie
docket which was a court order clarifying the aforemen-
tioned orders of December 28, 1971, and March 8, 1972.
We affirm.
Superior Court Civil Rule 15(a) provides in pertinent
part: “A party may amend his pleading once as a
matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading
is served ....” We note that appellee had mailed to the
clerk of the trial court on June 30, 1971, her pro se
answer to the complaint. That answer was marked “filed”
on July 2, 1971. Although the record does not reflect
that a copy of the answer was served on appellant. a
copy was admittedly received by appellant through the
mails bearing the date of June 30, 1971. Further, the
existence of the answer was referred to in a motion for
a continuance filed by appellee’s attorney when he was
first retained. Even though appellee’s answer was not
in customary legal form, having no caption, all of the
essentials of a caption were contained in the first sentence
of the answer.? Its thrust was clear and served to inform
appellant of appellee’s defense. Further, at no time prior
to the filing of appellee’s motion for summary judgment,
which was not until December 3, 1971, did appellant con-
tend that appellee was in default for failure to plead.
2 See 5 WRIGHT & MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE
§ 1321, at 461.
[206 |
i ee reese nee
| a
48
3
We agree with the court’s finding in the order of March
8, 1972, “that a trial would not produce any further
facts.” Consequently, the judgment entered was a resolu-
tion of the merits.* The time for taking an appeal from
that order lapsed and no effort was made to reopen
or set aside the judgment under Superior Court Civil
Rule 60(b).
We know of no law or rule permitting a party at such a
late date to circumvent the finality of a judgment by seek-
ing to amend his complaint.‘ Not finding error on the
part of the trial court in refusing to reconsider the denial
of the motion to amend the complaint, the order is
Affirmed.
2 Martucci v. Mayer, 210 F.2d 259 (3d Cir. 1954); 6 J.
MoorE, FEDERAL PRACTICE % 56.03, at 2051 (2d ed. 1948).
*See Cassell v. Michaux, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 375, 240 F.2d
406 (1956); Safeway Stores v. Coe, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 19,
136 F.2d 771 (1943); 6 WricHT & MILLER, FEDERAL PRAC-
TICE & PROCEDURE § 1489, at 445.
[207]
: s Segipees. We +n te eo ee ee
49 APPENDIX 12
Sissriet cf Calsurbic
Ceurt ot Appeals
No. 6816 Jaxvany Too, 1973
BETEE HM. owes
a/k/a BIT-Y 5. ENDER
and
RICHARD P. ALLIEN, apoellants,
v. CA 5670-71
?
1901 WYOMING AVENUE
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION,
a corporation, Appellee.
Appeal from the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia, Civil Division.
BEFORE: Fickling and Nebeker, Associate Judges, and Quinn,
Associate Judge, Retired.
JUDGMENT
This case came on to be heard on the record from
the Civil Division of the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia and was briefed and argued by counsel.
On consideration whereof, and after a review of
the record and applicable law, the court is of the
opinion that there exists no error of law which requires
reversal and that the factual rulings of the trial judge
are fully supported by the record.
Accordingly, it is this 2nd day of October 1973,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia in this cause
be, and it hereby is, affirmed.
Per Curiam.
For the Court:
Alexander L. Stevas,
Copies to: Clerk.
Honorable W. Byron Sorrell
Judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
Clerk, Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
John Joseph Matonis, Esq., 2603 P Street, N. W. (20007)
Attorney for Appellants. .
Stuart H. Robeson, Esq., 1628 Jefferson Place, N.wW. (20036)
Attorney tor Appelice.
aids.
at
a AS —
50 APPENDIX 13
DISTTIcT OF COLI'YBIA
Covert OF sPPFALS
Mo. 6816
Betty “. Alles
aad
Richard P. Allen
Plaintiffs
’. CA $670 - 71
1901 Wyoninr Avenue Cooperative Assn.
Defendant
PETITION POR PEPTARING
ee ee ee ee ee ee
The Pleintiffs respectfully request 4 reheering anc reconsideration of
previous decision, citing the following reasons;
i. That the previous opinion and judgrent entered by Judre Sorrell
was biased by his own participation in a cooperative such as the one
operated by the Defendent, aliowine interninal testimony by the
Defendants on matters of inpression, opinion and speculation while
cutting short testisosy of — Plaintiffs. For exemple, ease
useless bours were spent on testimony (objected to by Plaintiff's
counsel as innaterial end irrelevant) surrounding proposed rules and
Teeulations prepared by « committee but rejected without considera-
ttea tr tte ssererseive. Pxcecstly, she eresceed enteoe ond roonten
tions received sore attention in the court than by the cooperative.
2. That Judge Sorrell failed to recognize the following facts which
are pertinent, relevant and material in this case, to wit:
a. That Mrs. Allen was not vives any notice of penelty essociated
with renting her apartmen: at the time of signing the “utual Ownership
Contract. As a matter of fact the sublesse penelty rule was contained
ealy in the Board minutes, anc wes not published or evailable to
prospective wembers until after the onsec of this litirations.
bd. That the contract takes precedence over house rules or by-lavs
ie conflict. |
¢. That a house rcie ic conflict with the contract ts ie error
aad aull and void before lav.
4. That atterets to abrotate or nullify the letter. snirit or
detest of the cortract by the whimsical intervention of « third party,
d.4., the Doard of Directors, represents a conflict of intercet and an
dlleral encroachrent on riphts in eeuity ruarenteed by contract to the
owner ender lav.
ews mee >
a
51
-2-
e. That such encrosacheents, if not challenged, can at any tine
modify the contract unilaterally without the consent of the owner,
thereby nullifyins the rutual espect and oblisations inherent in the
original contract.
f. That one compromise of principle after another leads inevit-
ably to an intolerable, perhaps overwhelmine, concentration of pover
in teres of authority by the Soard of Directors and the recuction of
the cooperative menber to the status of tenant rather than owner.
g- Theat the precedent set by his opinion could influence future
decisions, adversely affecting the rights of all other citizens
electing to assume the responsibilities of cooperative ownership but
denied their rights under lav.
bh. That the Defendants had the onportunity to request a revisions
to ell contracts at the time of passing the house rule levying the
penalty for renting, but failed to do so and also failed to neatios
the penalty to the Plaintiff at the time of contract sienine, and
this rule was cot iscluded in the “published” rules and reeulations
as part of the contract by reference at the time of signing the-
eats ecoqncecoce.
i. That the house rules are for social conduct and cooperation,
Bet to be used for amending costracts. ;
J. That the house rules are written by a five-wan Eoard of Di-
rectors of limited tern of office asd not ewen coordinated with the
cooperative membership for review and approval.
3. That Judge Sorrell sllowed the Defendant to amend its original
position asking for cancellations of Plaintiff's contract and demand
for SO penalty for renting, ignoring the traumatic effect on the
Plaintiff of this outraseous attack unsupported by the facts ia the
matter. As a watter of fact, contrary to the sllegatious in the
original Sumrons to court initiated by the Defendants in this appeal
action, the Plaintiffs had not leased their apartrent for the three-
year period alleged ty the Defendants end the Su=sons also included
ether falee end erroneous statements, but denanded grievous penalty
for alleged transstressions. This abuse of lewal procecure led directly
to the traumatic injury of the wajor Pleistiff (Mrs. Allen) in this
case and the present action for redress in this Court of Appeals.
EN POT YE Le
ENP
I PTV eTN Per
(hh ieee a eth
-
—
Owes we:
Bow
o3-
4. Judge Sorrell held in his opinion that the sole issue in the case
wes whether the Defendant had the right to enforce the by-laws, rules
and reeulations of the Association reeerdine the ronthly rental sur-
charge upon the Plaintiffs under terms of their Mutual Ownership
Contract, when in fact the real issue was whether the contract would
hold over whimsical changes in the house rules after the fact of
contract signatory.
3S. At the top of page 7 of Judge Sorrell's Opinion, quoting Judge
Murphy's Opinion of March S, 1972, in a similar case, he omitted the
wost sisnificent elerents under consideration:
QUOTED: .... the terms of the original ownershir contract
cannot be drastically rewritten by merely a majority
vote of the cooperative association. ... such lang-
wage cennot in anv way be construed to permit «4
complete rewriting of a member's vital property
Tights ...eee
OMITTED: ..... a8 in this case the right to sublease a dwelling
without restriction of an increased operating charee.
The Association is free to pess revisions to its rules
as long as the wenbers’ property riehts under the
oricinel ownershipv contract are not affected thereby.
Otherwise, the Association sust enter into reaningful
megotiations with its menbers in order to change the
terms of their contracts and obtain compliance with .
the new teras.
&. Sa paze 3S vs was Upinion, juave Sorrell succes from the 77 Harvard
Law Review 779, 1964:
Statutes aniforely sive the condominium organization
power tc adopt bylews governinr the conduct of the
unit owners, but there remain questions as to the
pereissible scope of prohibition and the sanctions
to be inwoked in case of noncompliance.
He then admitted thet the ownership contract here in issue grants
Defendants (Allens, in the lower court) the perpetual use of Apartment
#33 subject to the rules and regulations of the Association, and that
whether the rules are rational is subject to further scrutiny, but
deened the surcharge to be “reasonable,” and later referred to it as
a “modest” surcharee. The latter conclusion of reasovableness, while
admitting the rationality needed further scrutiny, is in conflict with
logic and certainly has no relewance to the cited Earward Law Review
item which addresses “conduct” of cooperative renbers and does sot
speak to the point of monthly surcharge or rental penalty. The con-
¢lusion drawn in therefare ann aeanittnur an the ane bend end beontar
the question on the other, wherein both prenise and conclusion are
equally subject to proef.
saree
53
-4-
2. In Judge Sorrell's iast staterent on pare 5 of his Opinion, he
says that the sceuiatnee also does not atterpt to rerulate the node
eof living of the occupants of the building, when in fact, the house
rules do address the mode of living and conduct of cooperative men-
bers. This statement by Judge Sorrell in context of his Orinion is
in a separate pcerarpraph all by itself and does not clearly specify
what particular rerulation he had in mind, since he uses the indef-
inite article and no modifier on the term “rerulation.” It therefor
raises more questions than it answers and confuses the issue. But
while erecting the straw san “mode of living” Judge Sorrell admitted
in the previous staterent that the ownership contract is herein an
issue, which is contradictory of his previous statement nade on
page 2 that the sole issue was whether the Plaintiff (Coonerative
isa the lower court) has the right to enforce the by-laws, etc.
&. On page 6 of his Opinion, Judge Sorrell drew a nucber of eoustee
sions which actually are a mixture of facts and eoounetions- Por
example, the conclusion that the rental surcharge is reasonable was
Teally a premise used for argument earlier in his Opinion. This is
Se exanpie of circustocuticr, a f2liacy is argetent. The fects pre-
sented in his conclusions should have been presented under FINDINGS
OF FACT, not under CONCLUSIONS. The conclusions drawn therefore,
are specious, and do not losically support the decision rendered.
3. As held in ordinary landlord end tenant law which is aprilicable
to the relationship between a cooperative association and an apart-
Bent owner, Hicks v Ligelov, N.¥.$. 55 A.26 924, 926 (1547)
Bo charges shall be imposed upon a terant in addition
to those specified in the lease.
nee
eee no additiora!l liability will be imposed upon «a
tenant unless it is clearly within the srovisions of
the instrument under which it is clained. If the
instrument contains any anbieuity it must be resolved
against the landlord and in favor of the tenant.
Black vw. General Winer Supply Co., 305 X.Y. 385, 113 N.E. 24 528 at 530.
10. Courts agree, as in Vernon “ancr Cocnerative Arts. vw Salatino,
17€ WK.Y.S. 24 395, at 900-S02 (1950), that it makes no difference
wherhae « enanacee twa seen t ating baw encnewedt « eteke en ebqecce fee
by-laws or house rules, so far as contractual rights are concerned.
Ta point of fact, courts have recognized that the power to ferry-
mander the by-laws can be a source of oppression in a cooperative,
WT ae eed
APNE RY te pT aS AN er ey ewes Pe eee
ai. tok Ee ein ek aS
eee?
Sr ee ee
54
i.
and such chances should be carefully scrutinized for inequity. As
the court stated in Mutual Redevelonpmert liouses Inc. wv. Fanft, 249
R.Y.S. 24 982,991 (1964):
The provisions of Article Fourth, psracraph 15, concerning
compliance with all now existirs or hereafter enactec rules
and that violation of a sutstantial obliration of occunrancy,
are too broad ard uncefinec in scope. They leave untran-
meled power in the landlord's directors and would compel
terants to an absolute plecee of compliance without the
sliehtest inoviecce of the rule. Such autocracy should
met be encouraped.
il. Contractual rights supersede and take precedence over rules and
Tegulations passed after the fact of signatory. As in Tompkins v
Rale, 15 %.¥.S. 2d 854 (1939) aff'd. 20 ¥.Y.S. 2d 398, aff'd. 284
N.Y.S. 675, 30 N.E. 24 721, the Association's Poard of Directors is
powerless to "lepislate” cortractual riehts out of existence. If
this not be true then one abridgenent after another can take place
ageinst equity rights of menber tenants to the point where ownership
ie a mockery and responsibility becomes a liability. This rule of
law has been followed in subsequent cases. As in Vernon Manor Co-
operative w Salatino, supra, the court stated:
‘A by-law which disturbs « vested riekt is ipso facto net
Teasonable even thoush the vower to chanee the hvy-lava
bas Seen reservec.
aan
+++ @ wested right is a property interest so substantial in
character that its destruction or deprivation cannot be
justified by the objectives in view.
een
Im no case was the vested right constituted of less than a
substantial property right based on a contract. 1/
(Emphasis added)
12. The rental penalty levied on the Plaintiffs by the Defendants is
discriminatory and over the years would accunulate to thousands of
dollars, thereby depreciating the Plaintiff's spartrent value com-
pared with other apartments in the cooperative. The Defendants made
wo claim relating the rental penalty to increased costs resulting from
subleasing. Such penalty by cooperative associations have not been
favored heretofore by the courts. Vernon Menor, supra.
1/ Vernon Yanor, surra, involwed a court's arproval of a $2.00 nonthly
addition to a cooperative'’s maintenance charee to cover the extra cost
ef water, electricity and revsirs, eccasiored throush installation of
weve sng metniuecs Uy Lie ULHNETE, EWEN CnouUrr tHETe was NO express re-
striction on the rieht to install such eppliances in the owners" pro-
prietery leeses. It is clear, howewer, from that court's discession
ef wested property riehts thet any violation of a right tased on a
written contract, such as here involwed, would have been invalidated
by the court.
Biwi.
-6-
13. The justification offered by the Defendants for the rental
penalty that the Association needs protection fron “absentc* ownership”
is without basis in fact, untenable by reason, logic or the facts
in the matter. The Association has the uncontested reservation
to itself all the protection which it requires on this point which
is the right to pass aprroval on any prospective sub’essee, satis-
fying itself fully regarcing the probity, financial soundness and
stability of a prospective tenant. Favirg received such proofs of
character it should be immaterial to the Association whether the
occupant is a renter or owner, nor should it be ea matter of concern
to the Defendants whether there is loss or gain to the Plaintiffs
in such transaction within the right of perpetual use certified by
the ownership contract. Furthermore, the pretense by Defendant that
absentee owners deprive the Association of cooperative support in
management areas is invalidated by the fact that such support is
arbitrarily denied and refused in actual practice even though offered
by absentee owners. The fallacy of Defendant's position on this
point is further revealed ia the lizsht of transfer of ranseerenc
responsibility to a fiscal avent and previous experience wherein
owner-tenants refused generally to participate in manapement or serve
in official capacity. The allesed surcharge on leasing is therefore
@ blatant penalty on the exercise of contractual right aod an
abridsement of rights in equity and belies its avoved purpose. The
Defendant's argument on this point is therefore merely a sham to
cover or hide its real intention to enlarge its authority and in-
crease its incore at the owner's expense.
14. Im the order of precedence of statutory law, D.C. Covernnent
Peculations, Articles of Incorporation for Cooperative Association,
Eutual Ownership Contract, Cooperative By-laws and Fouse Fules, there
should be, therefore, no by-law passed by the cooperative in conflict
with the ownership contract or any higher rule, rerulation or law.
By the same token, no house rule should conflict with any by-law or
tafetnnwe an enw efahe cot farth in the aunerahin contract. The real
issue in this case is wlether e house rule in conflict with the
ownership contract and hisher laws of jurisdiction can be upheld when
contested in court. The Plaintiffs are allered to have compromised
FRE
SLSR NOAA SY RSE IMEEM! SP AV NM) ab AE
;
=
;
E
TAT oa Be
56
“Je
their rights under contract by paying the rental penalty when in
fact they considered it illepal from the beginning, and couplied
only long encurch to reveal its substantial inequity and obvious
intrusion anc abriarecrect of contractual riztes en the basis of
legal counsel provided. |
In the sale of any cooperative apartment, a bona fide contract is
Tecognizec in law, Sut rc house rule apnearine onlw in Board minutes
unknown to the prospective seid cannot be held to be part of
the contract, and should be considered illesal if it abridges, nul-
lifies or necates the contract in any respect.
In view of these previously demonstrated inequities and errors
in judement by lower court jurisdiction, the Plaintiffs request
reconsideration and redress of wrones suffered at the hands of
Gefendants who struck without varnine or use of the standard pro-
cedure in resolvins cooperative problems, and abused legal process
to cause us grievous mental, physical and seine suffering.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs request that this case be reconsidered in
the light of the facts specified herein and supnorted by the record
Put not Hereiviote given i= sricte or setarity deserved in judicial
decision for the best interests of all concerned.
Respectfully subcitted,
Baixo mm, Alin
Betty 4% Allen, pro se
CEA a
Pichard P. Allen, pro se
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Petition for
Rehearing vas nailed, postare prepaid, this 5th day of “ovenber,
1973, to Stuart Robeson, Esq., 1528 Jefferson Place, N.W,
Washington, D.C. 206036, attorney for Defendant.
Lut I Athenw
setty/. Allen
- Ss RETR ee 2 Se re ee RT
57 APPENDIX 14
Distritt of Columbia seinen ah nities
Court of Appeals a
FILED WOV7 1973
No. 6816 : ype Toe A Mivew
Clerk
BETTY M. ALLEN
a/k/a BETTY J. MENDER
and
RICHARD P, ALLEN,
Appellants,
v. CA 5670-71
1901 WYOMING AVENUE COOPERATIVE
ASSOCIATION, a corporation,
Appellee.
e 3
BEFORE: Fickling, Nebeker, Associate Judges, and Quinn,
Associate Judge, Retired.
San Sumsicccation us appeliants' pecicion for
rehearing, it is
ORDERED that appellants’ petition is denied.
PER CURIAM
Copies to:
Honorable W. Byron Sorrell
Judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Clerk, Superior Court of the District of Columbia
John J. Matonis
2603 P Street, N.W.(7)
/Betty M. Allen
Richard P. Allen
560 N Street, S.W. (24) |
Stuart H. Robeson, Esquire
1828 Jefferson Place, N.W. (36) add
58 APPENDIX 15
eee SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT CF COLU4BIA
Civil Division
MARGARET DL LEE >
ee ee, ee Civil Action No, 5915-72
. °
~ -- -
1901 WYCHING AVENUE
COOPERATIVE assoct SUATION
ns eae | - EMORANDLIA OPINION
- This cater came on for hearing before the Court on plaintiff's.
potion ‘for partial summary judguent as to lability ‘and defendant"
metten for summery: dudgaent. Although defendant's rotion had been °
previously grented by another judge of this Court and ‘the order ie
was later vacated by a different judoe, the plaintit? agrees that the
Court 1s not now precluded froa acting oa the motion. The reasoo the
Court is not so precluded is that the setting aside of the order .
Granting suzuary juccuent was not prompted by any consideration of
the motion’s merits. The order granting defendant summary judgment
was vacated because 1t had been entered without the knowledge or
consent of the plaintiff. See Fraser v. se 76 U.S. dies
111, 130 F.24 617 (1942), Se eee re Bee
_ Toe dispute between the parties arose out of a contract entered
into fn 1554 whereby plaintity, Margaret 0. Lee, purchased from the
defendant, 1903 Wyoming Avenue Cooperative Assoctatios, the right of
perpetual ase and enjoyment of apartment number 25 in premises 1901
Wyoning Avenue, H.W. oer tee terms of Section 8 of the ogremmant,
the Assoctation wes to
**resrovide and pay for water, heat, — and
electricity in reasonable acounts, [and] ***>provide and
pay for all necessary current repairs, maintenance and
reglacecents of project property including the “‘ember's
@welling, exceot that the Henber shall be resvorsible for
all interior repairs and all interior painting and
ting.***"
ERT LOS ERE TA Ril ett TORS ARIS TAGS PS ae CR
59
ans
The gravazen of plaintiff's complaint is that she fs not being
supplied on adequate acount of hot water as required by the above
agreenent. ‘The parties agree, at least for purposes of these cotions,
that the Assoctatton is supplying an adequate acount of hot water
through the main riscr, but that the feeder pipe from the main oe
to the fixtures is in such a clogged and deteriorated condition that
oaly a saa} amount of the hot water is reaching the fixtures in
plaintiff's apartnent. The question then is whether the maintenance
of the feeder pipe is the responsibility of the wo piatanier or of the
Assoctatton. : pelted” aes wr,
wise ge Listen nat
2S-S Ss. eso
alee’
_ The. min riser runs. ‘through the aie 4 froa t the basesent of the
building to ‘te top floor. A 1, fitting withia tbe all connects
the mata | riser to- the feader pipe: The feeder pipe runs under the
floor within | the apartzent and energes at.the point where it {3
attached ta the fixture. LA A pluabing and heating contractor has “o:
befor tent tet ar nie
- correct this presi (of an adequate supoly of hot
e.5 water) we will have to cut up tile floor and replace
“2 ys the existing galvanized hot water line with new 1/2"
"; Copper tubing froma riser to fixture and replace floor
and val tile.°
i "This can be done for the sum of $296.CO ee tax.°
_ (Exhibit I to Answer to interrogatories)
: The Association, in support of its contention that its obli-
gation is fulfilled once {t supplies hot vater *to® as distinguished
fron “in® the apartrent, points to the House Rules and Regulations
adopted by {its Board of Directors. The pertinent rule in existence
at the tice the parties entered into their contract provided that
“1. The following for=s of insurance are carrisd by the
Association but do not cover contents of an individual
member's apartrent***_ “e-bers are ecvised to carry fire
and extended insurance on their furniture and rousenold
goods. It is recommended that me-bers also carry liability
insurance, since they are liable for any damage cone ta a
netghbor's aparsmenz because of faulty plumbing and acts
of Carelessness. The Association, however, is r2sponsidle
for any damage to apartrents caused by faulty Slumbing,
wiring, etc., not accessible fron the surface in any apart-
went." (1553 House Rules and Reculations)
Lala
POAT EY ES
phi i cs
LN PAPO RE RE PPT of of
PST MS ePIC GMT TH TR
eveains
PMI TIVE PORE
TS) Oa ae
=.
ba hee bay
OBES? hci 3 ce
60
-3-
The Rule was amended in 1965 to provide as follows: :
ae Owners are responsible for loss of sen from
--* > fire or otner camace within their apartments. The
Sie Association coes not carry insurance: on contents. had
2 a individual apartments.” . .
Omers are responsible for aan snes to other
*7. a
ie.JJIm - apartments fn the building frea faulty pluning,
pach <n ’ bad wiring, or acts of carenqounnes within the. -
Su > responsibility of the owner.” . R
oe Qwners are responsible for vesetve eseette fren
the “surtace" in any apartment, as defined by lecal
: ” precedent. Except for damages cause. by faulty
“lr 2. plumbing in the main risers, which belong to the
"yp oes, Assoctation, damage is the ape heed of each.
es >, omar® 3 Re
aa
The: ‘Rule was anended again in 1572, dust prior to the ‘institution
~ « ¢ _
of this lawsuit, ‘and provides me ces Se ica! fake, ‘a Ae a ‘:
* _ ed
.
~
- > "3 "Owners are responsible for the loss ai queers froe fire;
Ae: ‘or other calamities within their apartments. Although i
vo ci st. the Association insures the entire building according to
<* principles of sound manacement, the contents of individual ~
*. apartments are not covered. An owner is liable for dazace-
-. Caused to other apartments by ris pluaping, wiring, other
personal property, or from actions within the responsibility
-- OF Cie umer. iim Omer Is SOlery responsioie for ana Tust
@aintain the plumoing, wiring, etc., that serves specifically
_ “as Ais apartment, as detined by lecal precedent. For exarole,
Oud 5: - the Association caintains and is responsibie for damages
>_ from leaks from risers, but an individual owner must main=
.~ tain and is responsible for damages from leaks from the
- _° feeder pipes to his apartment." (Subsection J of Section 2,
: > ° original underlining omitted.) E .
i The House Rules and Regulations, if reasonable, are binding upon
all ‘the members wo tad contracted with the Association subsequent to
their adoption. (Opinion and order of Judge Sorrel] in Allen vy.
1901 Wyoming Avenue Cooverative Association, Civil Action No. 5670-71,
affirned without opinion in 0.C. App. Ho. 6816). House Rules and -- :
Requiations, however, unilaterally adopted by the Association, cannot
godify existing property rights of a member under the original owmer-
ship contract regardless of how reasonable they may be. (Opinion and
order of Judge Murphy in 199] tiyoming Avenue Cooserative Association
v. Lee, Civil Action Mo. 5569-71.)
EN Ue RE Tei th EP Aa a tt A hee alate
61
-4-
The Association agrees, as it must, that the 1965 and 1972
versions of its kouse Rule cannot modify any right which the plaintiff
obtained in 1954 when her contract was executed. Its argument is that
“the 1965 ‘and 1972 versions of the pertinent House Rule are "nerely
designed. to clarity the contractuad relationship between plaineiff.
and the Assoctatton as to responsibility for utility repairs."
: (Paragraph 3 of defendant's objection te motion for partial oemaey ;
_Sudgrent}.. A A contract, however, can hardly be clarified by such a
Sec uh adopted and self-serving rule or regulation. Bers
The: ‘extent of the Association’ s obligation to ‘the plaineife: <: K
respicting ‘te furntshing of hot water can only be determined from :
an examination of the contract Atselt togetner- with. any “assistance io
‘that & my ‘be provided by the House Rule in existence at the tine of aa
the execution of the contract.-- The Assoctation contracted to “provides -
‘hot rater and to pay for an necessary repares and replacesenis of project
property focludiag the wenber's dwelling. The only excestion to this -°
comai trent is that the mexber-is to be respensibie for all “interior 1s
s-
_-_=
ah art ie
o 1 Nowhere! in ‘the contract 13 “interior* defined. If, as the Asso=-. -
me contends, “interior” includes everything from -"one concrete -
repairs ‘and all intertor painting ‘and decorating. | eee
slab below to the concrete slab above" and the ares “just behind the
plastered surface of thevalts the Association, by agreeing in ; : e
‘section 8 of the contract to “pay for all necessary current repairs,
maintenance and replacenents of project property including the menber's
dwe}ling,* obl {gated itself to ¢o absolutely nothing inside its ‘embers’
apartments in the way of wopeiee ¢ or maintenance, ate
i/ Pernaps tnis argucent could be construed as a tacit admission
that the contract, drafted by the Association, is ambicuoas.
2/ Parasrapn 1} of defendant's acditional anette and authorities
in support of summary judgment.
AES, COR PR RPE Te fe
5.
House Rule 11, which was in existence at the time the parties
contrected, purports to define the respective oblisattons of the
Association and its members by placing the responsibility upoa the .
Association for "any damase to apartments. caused by faulty plumbing,
wirteg. ete., not: accessible fee the surface in any apartaent.* a
Altmega the Association has sate little about this Rule, ‘recently
its position would be that the pipes and wires are accessible froa -
‘ we surface by werely tearing bg the floor and resoving the plaster ..
from the malls. a, thts be $0. then asaia it ‘has ob] fgated itself: ~
te do nothing inside its menbers* apartuents.. - SF * set &
~The Association. argues. “that trom the inception of: the cooperative.
ach Somber fas been regarded as responsible for tatiog care of repairs
fa his on living wit and that the Assoctation has taken are. of the
main risers ‘ana ‘cables which distribute water and electricity fren:
the basement throughout: the building... They Htken this to, stagle— _ ..
ramily <= omarsnip wnere it 1s customarily tne respeasis1itty oT
the home ower to matataia the utility lines from the eige of the .--
orivate procerty 3 the fixture or receptacle ‘inside the house. gt
says ferther that this arrangement cenerally coincides ‘with ‘that pre
vatling in other cooperative dwelling associations in this city and
elsemere. The question, of course, is what the senbers vere obligated
te de and not what they may have done, voluntartly or tmeiuntartly.
Fertherwore, if the Association ts stating that the prevailing practice
is te place the responsibility upon the members for repatrs of this ;
nature, it sets forth no supporting authority. The text satertal :
which the Court has examined 1s to the contrary. For example, in the
publication by the Institute cf Real Estate Management, Cooterstive
Apartzents Their Crsanization and Profitable Qveration, Lease For A Co-op,
(W. Watkins) (1956), it is stated that
_ SMe erecta
* *. except items of the tyne where replaccrents are frequently
g@ade because of changes in fishion and taste. Thus eacn
tenant-owner pays for his own Cocorating, and saintenance
ard roplacerent of stoves, refriserators, kitchen lincleua
and window shades.****
Gg eas—
OP OT DN ROL + es —_—_
63
.
“It is custecary for the cooperative corroratica to recair
all other equip 2nt onu parts of the structure and replace
_them waen worn cut: lignt switches, outlets, faucets,
wea therstrippic "9 Tadiator valves.**** (Pace 9.)
eeeeyitnin ezch individual aparteont, the lessee rust pay
for reprirs, cccurating and replaccunt ef equipment unless
the equipuant rezazing repair is concealed ina wall. Ifa
pipe leaks in a wall of an apartcent, tne building will
open up the v-21] as necessary to locste and repair the leak
and aitervarcs vil] rcoair any structural camace such as -
plaster and trin. ccecorating is, as always. at the |
lessee's expense.“ (Pace 69.) v
3 See also Vol. 2. Rohan and Reskin, Seal Estate Transactions,
ones Housirg Law and Practice, §9.05(2] (1973),
ere T*The corporation's odiigations with respect ts sabia
> “sof a ccoperative corporation's prentses are generally
*- > spelled cut in suxcary fashion to insiuce the duty to
_. °. @Gaiatain the crenises in A-nub-r-one concition, including
> » the duty to case ail repairs anu replacements except those
+. specifically race the oblication of the lessees in the
Y-;._" Octupancy agreecent, and those sade tecessary by act,
Ss neglect or carelessness of the lessees or any menber of a
* -lessee's fapily or their quests, employees or acents.
- Since the lessee's odlications in tnis connection are
* generally lisited ts rececoration of nis own apartment
meester ss imtnesnen sed manlsenmante af she ani menace
within Mis aparcrens (sucn as scove anc reiriceratcr), 311
™ other caintenarce asset is that of the lesser-
. Corporation.° : : a
The Court concludes that the qunstrustien which the Association
places upon “interfor® is erroneous, and one which was not within ct)
contemplation of the parties at the time the contract mas executed.
Cf. Susskind wv. 1136 Tenants Corvoration, 25] 4.Y.S. 34 321 (1964).
Certainly when one living in a qultiple story building is told by the
owner that the apartuent will be supplied with water, it is reascnable
to assume that the mater will be supplied to a fixture within the azart-
pent as opposed to a “T® connection inside the mil. Also, the adoption
of the Associations interpretation of section 8 would render other
portions of the contract ceaningless, which would te violative of tne
“cardinal rule of interpretation that all portions of a document are
to be considered tosether and each is to be given effect if this process
yields a reasonable whole.” Huoer v. Mullan 246 F. Supp. 8, (9.C. i.
1963). Furthermore, if, as the Association's argument seems to suggest,
3f See footnote I.
eye ae
i re brew ec
die
there are any ambiguities in the contract, such ambiguities must be
resolved against: the Association, the drafter of the contract. Cowal
v. Hopkins, 229 A.24 452, 454 (D.C. App. 1967). :
Finally, at oral arguaent on the enttans the Association shttaniis
for the first tine, the defense of laches. "The defense is not only
_unticely, but is without werits The parties have been corresponding. -
with each other rather continuously frow 1966 through 1873 ia an effort
to solve this dispute. (Exbidits 0 and I eS “Answer te Interrogatertes).
An order Witt ‘be entered granting summary judgment for plaintiff =
on the tse ‘of Manni. Because of the age of this case, the: oi
Assigument Comzisstoner, after reviewiog the civil calendar and
ascertaining the availability of the parties, “il vet the casa for
hearing on the fssue-of damages. - i Se,
ss
Original signed by John R. Hess
wenn RR. hess, Jucge
» Esq.
for Plaintiff
Landis, Cohen, Sinczuan and Rawh
1910 Sunderland Place, .u.
tehtagten, D.C. 20036
Stuart H. Robeson, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant
1823 Jefferson Place, ‘i.¥.
Washington, 0.C, 20036
ce: 8. Michael Rah
Attorney
Daves
65 APPENDIX 16
= SUPERICS COURT OF THE DISTAICT CF CoLLYSIA
Sy 7 72> Civil Division
oo -
MARGARET D. LEE
? vent ; Civil Action to. 5915-72
1S01 vyeNr's 3 AVESUE : - 7 3 ic = .
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION “+ a
This matter cane on for hearing before the Court on the motion
of plaintttt, Marsarct 0. Lee, for partial summary judguent as to
Hability, and the motion of the defendant, 1901 Wyoming Avenue -
Cooperative Association, for sumary judgent. Upon consiceration |
of the astions. the ont the points and authorities in support
thereof os ia opposition thereto, and the arcusents of counsel, ani
$t appeering te the Court that there is no gensine issue as to any
saterial fact Ao that tne piaintir® is entities to jucgrent as to
Mability as a matter of law,
It ts by the Court this a ey
* ORDERED, that the motion of plaintiff, Marcaret 0. Lee, for
maine sexary Judcment as to liability be, and the sane heredy is,
granted, and that the sotion of the defendant, 1901 kyoming Avenue
Cooperative Association, for sumary ducastnn am, and the same hereby —
—_ >
is, dented. ieee “ Sse ¥ :
: FURTHER ORDERED, that the motion of ardisianes to strike defendants
"additional Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant's 2enexal
of Motion for Summary Judgment” be, and the same hereby is, denied.
FURTHER GROERED, that the case be scheduled for hearing on che
issue of damages without undue delay.
=
Original signed by John R. Hess
woan R. hess, Jucs2
ce: 8. Michael 2auh, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
Stuart H. Robe<on, Esq.
Attorney for Oefendant
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.