Opinion ID: 2422541
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Conflict with other statutory provisions

Text: When two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed [legislative] intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. DeGroot v. DeGroot, 939 A.2d 664, 670 (D.C.2008) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). If related statutes conflict, we must reconcile them. Washington Teachers' Union, Local #6 v. District of Columbia Pub. Schs., 960 A.2d 1123, 1132 (D.C.2008) (citations omitted). The owners' proposed reading of D.C.Code § 42-3404.02(a), however, conflicts with other provisions of TOPA and related statutes. For example, the tenant's statutory right of first refusal is inconsistent with the owners' theory that a tenant's opportunity to purchase arises only if the sale is for purposes of demolition or discontinuance of housing use. In addition to any and all other rights specified in this subchapter, TOPA affords tenants the right of first refusal during the 15 days after the tenant or tenant organization has received from the owner a valid sales contract to purchase by a third party. Id. § 42-3404.08. The statutory right of first refusal contains no language limiting it to situations involving the proposed demolition or discontinuance of housing use. There is no reason for the scope of the right to receive a bona fide offer of sale to differ from the scope of the right of first refusal; indeed, to suggest such a difference would be incongruous. TOPA is structured in such a way that the right of first refusal and the right to an offer of sale function in tandem, and if one applies to all sales, so necessarily must the other. Section 42-3404.08, for example, provides that if the third-party contract is received during the negotiation periods pursuant to §§ 42-3404.09(2), § 42-3404.10(2), or § 42-3404.11(2)  which come into play only when the tenants have received an offer of sale  the 15-day period to exercise the right of first refusal will begin to run at the end of the negotiation period. See 1836 S St., Tenants Ass'n, 965 A.2d at 839-40 (describing the interplay between a tenant's right to receive a bona fide offer of sale and the right of first refusal). [22] Further, to construe § 42-3404.02(a) as requiring owners to afford their tenants an opportunity to purchase when they sell their units only if the sale is for purposes of demolition or discontinuance of housing use creates a conflict with D.C.Code § 42-3505.01(e). That provision states that [a] housing provider may recover possession of a rental unit where the housing provider has in good faith contracted in writing to sell the rental unit or the housing accommodation in which the unit is located for the immediate and personal use and occupancy by another person, so long as the housing provider has notified the tenant in writing of the tenant's right and opportunity to purchase as provided in Chapter 34 of this title. Id. (emphasis added). This provision makes it clear that an owner who seeks to sell a unit for the immediate and personal use and occupancy of another person must first afford the tenant an opportunity to purchase the accommodation as provided in TOPA. However, the owner in this situation plainly would not be selling the unit for purposes of demolition or discontinuance of housing use; indeed, continued housing use is the very purpose of the sale. Section 42-3505.01(e) can be given effect only if § 42-3404.02(a) is construed as requiring owners to provide tenants with an opportunity to purchase for all sales, not merely those for purposes of demolition or discontinuance of housing use. See Washington Teachers' Union, 960 A.2d at 1132. Finally, the RHCSA provides that [t]he purposes of this chapter favor resolution of ambiguity by . . . a court toward the end of strengthening the legal rights of tenants or tenant organizations to the maximum extent permissible under law. D.C.Code § 42-3405.11. Even if we were to assume, arguendo, that the punctuation of § 42-3404.02(a) creates an ambiguity regarding whether TOPA rights extend to all sales or only to sales for purposes of demolition or discontinuance of housing use, and even if that ambiguity remained (which it does not) after TOPA's legislative history and the statute's interplay with related provisions are taken into account, we are required by the Act to resolve any such ambiguity in favor of the broader coverage, thereby advancing the legal rights of tenants and of organizations that represent them.