Opinion ID: 1891487
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: USFN's Appeal

Text: USFN contends that the trial court had no power to impose liability on it because it was not a party in the proceedings between the tenants and DDUA and Simon. Appellee concedes the point, and we agree. USFN appeals pursuant to D.C.Code § 11-721(a)(1) and (b) (1995) as a party aggrieved by the monetary judgments against it. Although the quoted language of subsection (b) suggests that only a party can appeal, this court has held otherwise. In United States v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., 418 A.2d 114 (D.C.1980), the United States appealed from a decision of the trial court in a case in which it had not appeared. This court permitted the appeal, finding that one who was not a party to the action in the trial court has been allowed to intervene, post-judgment, for the purpose of taking an appeal under certain circumstances: where the proposed intervenor has an appealable interest, acts promptly after the final judgment, and by its entry into the case on appeal will cause minimal prejudice to the parties already in the case . . . . In determining whether the proposed intervenor has an appealable interest, courts have utilized traditional standing principles; the would-be intervenor must be a person aggrieved by the decision it seeks to challenge. Id. at 116. As USFN's appeal satisfies these requirements, we have jurisdiction to consider it on the merits. We vacate the order against USFN. It is a violation of due process for a judgment to be binding on a litigant who was not a party or a privy and therefore has never had an opportunity to be heard. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 327 n. 7, 99 S.Ct. 645, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979). USFN was not a party, and it was not shown to be the privy of a party. The fact that DDUA had transferred the master lease for the Dupont Circle underground space to USFN did not, standing alone, make USFN the alter ego of DDUA for purposes of enforcing the settlement agreement. [4] Although we vacate the order against USFN, our ruling is without prejudice to future efforts by Circle Associates to attempt to hold USFN liable as an alter ego of a party to the settlement agreement. [5]