Opinion ID: 2299178
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Rental Housing Conversion and Sale Act

Text: Section 42-3404.02(a), is part of the larger Act. See D.C.Code §§ 42-3401.01 et seq. The Act's overarching purpose is to protect tenant rights. [1] The Act was passed in response to the housing crisis in the District of Columbia, during which many residents were left with no home after their rental units were converted to condominiums. These conversions had the greatest effect on the city's low and moderate income families and the elderly population who lived on fixed incomes, in that both groups were least able to purchase their unit once it converted and [were] least able to compete in a rental market which [was] rapidly increasing in price, while decreasing in available units. See COUNCIL OF D.C., COMM. ON HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, REPORT ON BILL 3-222: RENTAL HOUSING CONVERSION AND SALE ACT OF 1980, at 2 (enacted as D.C.Code §§ 42-3401.01 et seq. ) (hereinafter  COUNCIL REPORT ); see also D.C.Code § 42-3401.02(1). The Council's desire to protect tenants' rights is further reflected in § 42-3405.11, which states that [t]he purposes of this chapter favor resolution of ambiguity by the hearing officer or a court toward the end of strengthening the legal rights of tenants or tenant organizations to the maximum extent permissible under law. Id. At the same time, this court may not rewrite the statute to create ambiguity where the statutory scheme is unambiguous in establishing the meaning of its terms. Coburn v. Heggestad, 817 A.2d 813, 823 (D.C. 2003) (construing related provisions of the Act.). The section of the Act at issue in our case is D.C.Code § 42-3404.02(a), which states that Before an owner of a housing accommodation may sell the accommodation, or issue a notice of intent to recover possession, or notice to vacate, for purposes of demolition of discontinuance of housing use, the owner shall give the tenant an opportunity to purchase the accommodation at a price and terms which represent a bona fide offer of sale. Id. (emphasis added). While bona fide offer of sale is not defined in the statute, § 42-3404.05 requires that the owner and tenants bargain in good faith. Good faith is absent when an owner fails to offer the tenant a price or terms at least as favorable as that offered to a third party . . . . § 42-3404.05(a)(1). Thus, when there is a third-party contract, the statute implicitly requires that the bona fide offer be roughly equal to the offer made to a third party. See D.C.Code § 42-3404.05(a-1). Furthermore, there is no requirement in the statute that such an offer be based upon the property's use as a rental unit. For example, as the appellant conceded during oral argument, if the rental property is zoned for a more financially lucrative usea mixed use retail and residential and was offered for sale on the open market, the tenants would have to match a third party offer even if that offer was based upon the value of the property as a mixed use complex.