# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Allen v. 1901 Wyoming Avenue Cooperative Ass'n > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385607_1676%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1974 - **Citation:** 416 U.S. 939 ## 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 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 ~ : - . -- -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 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. rulicratioa 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 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 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 _ 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: “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