Opinion ID: 2551230
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: What Does the Statute Require?

Text: The remaining question then is whether the tenant provide[d] the owner... with the statement of interest when he placed it in the mail on May 18 or whether, as the owner contends, the tenant did not provide [him] with the statement until he received it on June 2. The meaning of the term provide ... with is a question of statutory interpretation, and we review the trial court's decision de novo. Wemhoff v. District of Columbia, 887 A.2d 1004, 1007 (D.C.2005); 1618 Twenty-First Street Tenants' Ass'n, Inc. v. Phillips Collection, 829 A.2d 201, 203 (D.C.2003).
We start, as we must, with the language of the statute. Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 144, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995). The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used. Peoples Drug Stores, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 470 A.2d 751, 753 (D.C.1983) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, in examining the statutory language, it is axiomatic that `the words of the statute should be construed according to their ordinary sense and with the meaning commonly attributed to them.' Id. (quoting Davis v. United States, 397 A.2d 951, 956 (D.C. 1979) (additional citation omitted)). Neither TOPA nor the related regulations define the term provide ... with. See D.C.Code § 42-3401.03 (2001) (definitions section); 14 DCMR § 4799.1 (1991) (same). Thus, it is appropriate for us to look to dictionary definitions to determine the ordinary meaning of these words. 1618 Twenty-First Street Tenants' Ass'n, 829 A.2d at 203. Provide means to supply for use and is synonymous with furnish. WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1827 (2002); see also THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 1458 (3d ed. 1992) ([t]o furnish, supply, or make available). In order to use the statementto be able to read it and act upon itthe owner must have access to it. Therefore, to supply [the statement of interest] for use or to make [it] available, the tenant must place it in the owner's possession. Depositing the statement in the mail may give rise to an inference that the owner will receive it eventually, see, e.g., Kidd Int'l Home Care, Inc. v. Prince, 917 A.2d 1083, 1087 (D.C.2007) (There is a rebuttable presumption that a letter properly addressed, stamped, and mailed, and not returned to the sender, has been delivered to the addressee.), but the owner does not have possession of, or access to, the statement while it is in the mail stream. Thus, the ordinary sense of the term provide ... with is that the tenant must ensure that the statement reaches the landlord within thirty days. [6]
We recognize, however, that [a] word in a statute may or may not extend to the outer limits of its definitional possibilities. Dolan v. United States Postal Service, 546 U.S. 481, 486, 126 S.Ct. 1252, 163 L.Ed.2d 1079 (2006). The meaning or ambiguityof certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 132, 120 S.Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000). Therefore, we do not read statutory words in isolation; the language of surrounding and related paragraphs may be instrumental to understanding them. District of Columbia v. Beretta, U.S.A., Corp., 872 A.2d 633, 652 (D.C.2005) (en banc). We consider not only the bare meaning of the word but also its placement and purpose in the statutory scheme. Bailey, 516 U.S. at 145, 116 S.Ct. 501. Statutory interpretation is a holistic endeavor.... Washington Gas Light Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 982 A.2d 691, 716 (D.C.2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). TOPA contains separate provisions dealing with single-family accommodations (§ 42-3404.09), accommodations with two through four units (§ 42-3404.10), and accommodations with five or more units (§ 42-3404.11). Variants of the word provide appear throughout the statutory scheme. Some portions of TOPA require the tenant to provide notice to the owner; others require the owner to provide information to the tenant. The process begins when the owner provides each tenant and the Mayor a written copy of an offer of sale (§ 42-3404.03). This written offer must include: (4) A statement that the owner shall make available to the tenant a floor plan of the building and an itemized list of monthly operating expenses, utility consumption rates, and capital expenditures for each of the 2 preceding calendar years within 7 days after receiving a request. The statement shall also indicate that the owner shall, at the same time, make available the most recent rent roll, list of tenants, and list of vacant apartments. If the owner does not have a floor plan, the owner may meet the requirement to provide a floor plan by stating in writing to the tenant that the owner does not have a floor plan. D.C.Code § 42-3404.03(4) (2001). The owner's obligation is to make this information available to the tenant within 7 days after receiving a request. § 42-3404.03(3). The last sentence of subsection (4) refers to one aspect of this obligation as the requirement to provide a floor plan (emphasis added). Later sections of TOPA dealing with the sale of accommodations of different sizes all use common language to refer back to this requirement: For every day of delay in providing information by the owner as required by this subchapter, the negotiation period is extended by 1 day. § 42-3404.09(2); § 42-3404.10(2); § 42-3404.11(2) (emphasis added). In context, therefore, providing information to tenants is synonymous with making it available to them. If the owner had mailed the information and it still were in the mail stream after the seven-day deadline had expired, each day that passed before the mail arrived would be counted as a day of delay. Thus, § 42-3404.09(1) gives the tenant 30 days to provide the owner and the Mayor with a written statement of interest. Section 42-3404.09(2) refers to the owner's obligation to provide information to the tenant. Similar parallel use of these terms is found in D.C.Code § 42-3404.10 (2001) (accommodations of two through four units). The word provide and its variations should have the same meaning, whether the tenant or the owner has the obligation to provide. Both the language and the structure of the statute confirm that provide means make available. [7]
We have not found any legislative history from 1980 that is particularly useful in deciding the question before us. This is not surprising because, as originally enacted, TOPA did not require tenants in accommodations of up to four units to submit a statement of interest within any specified period of time. Rental Housing Conversion and Sale Act of 1980, D.C. Law 3-86, §§ 409-410, 27 D.C.Reg. 2975, 2993-94 (1980). [8] In 1983, however, the Council amended the statute to limit the time within which the tenants of a housing accommodation of two to four units could respond to an offer of sale. Rental Housing Conversion and Sale Act of 1980 Amendments and Extension Act of 1983, D.C. Law 5-38, § 2(k), 30 D.C.Reg. 4866, 4872 (1983). The thirty-day time period at issue here was added in 1988 after opponents of legislation to renew the Rental Housing Conversion and Sale Act (including TOPA) requested a similar limitation for single family dwellings. Rental Housing Conversion and Sale Act of 1980 Extension Amendment Act of 1988, D.C. Law 7-154 § 2(g), 35 D.C.Reg. 5715, 5716 (1988). In its original form, TOPA set only one deadline for an expression of interest, and it applied to tenants in an accommodation with five or more units. In order to make a contract of sale with an owner, D.C.Code § 45-1640, now codified as D.C.Code § 42-3404.11 (2001), required the tenants to [f]orm a tenant organization with the legal capacity to hold real property and deliver a statement of registration to the Mayor and the owner by hand or by first class mail within 45 days of receipt of a valid offer. Whether the tenants used the mail or made hand delivery, the statement of registration had to be delivered to the owner within 45 days. This served as notice that the tenant organization wished to purchase the property. In 1983 the Council was asked to extend the life of the Rental Housing Conversion and Sale Act and to make certain amendments. The Committee Report explained that § 45-1639 (now codified at § 42-3404.10) is amended to require tenants to indicate in a time certain an interest in purchasing a two- to four-unit building, thereby giving the owner timely notice of the tenants' intent to purchase (emphasis added). D.C. Council, Report on Bill 5-162 at 3 (June 7, 1983). During the legislative process, Mayor Barry wrote to Councilmember John Ray, urging, among other things, an amendment to § 45-1639 requiring that tenants in properties with two to four units indicate interest in purchasing as a prerequisite to using all of the existing negotiation period. Carol Thompson, Director of the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, explained the need for this amendment during her testimony on behalf of the executive branch: Under the current law, an owner of a building with two to four units must wait a total of 135 days[ [9] ] before the owner knows whether the tenants will attempt to buy the property. On the other hand, the tenants in a building with five units or more must indicate an interest in purchasing within 45 days in order to continue with the purchase process. We recommend that a parallel provision be included for buildings with two to four units. This amendment would make the law more equitable for the smaller landlords who are often the owners of these small rental properties. Id., Report on Bill 5-162 at Attachment B, page 6. As indicated, this amendment was designed to give timely notice to the owner and to reduce the time he must wait before learning whether the tenants will attempt to buy the property. Section 1639 was amended in two respects. Three sentences, here italicized, were added to the end of subsection (1) so that it read: (1) Joint and several response. The tenants may respond to an owner's offer first jointly, then severally. Upon receipt of a written offer of sale from the owner, a group of tenants acting jointly shall have 15 days to provide the owner and the Mayor with a written statement of interest. Following that time period, an individual tenant shall have 7 days to provide a written statement of interest to the owner and the Mayor. Each statement of interest must be [a] clear expression of interest on the part of the tenant or tenant group to exercise the right to purchase as specified in this subchapter [.] Subsection (2) was amended by adding the italicized words at the beginning: (2) Negotiation period. (A) Upon receipt of a letter of intent from a tenant or a tenant group, the owner shall afford the tenants a reasonable period to negotiate a contract of sale, and shall not require less than 90 days. For every day of delay in providing information by the owner as required by this subchapter, the negotiation period is extended by 1 day; (B) If, at the end of the 90-day period or any extensions thereof, the tenants jointly have not contracted with the owner, the owner shall provide an additional 30-day period, during which any 1 of the current tenants may contract with the owner for the purchase of the accommodation[.] D.C. Law 5-38, § 2(k), 30 D.C.Reg. 4866 (1983). To be sure, our task would have been simpler if the Council had used the word deliver instead of provide, but there is every reason to believe that the Council intended this parallel provision to have a similar meaning to the statute on which it was modeledthe section dealing with buildings of five units or more, which required that the statement of registration be delivered within 45 days. See testimony of Director Thompson, quoted above. This 1983 amendment was intended to give the owner timely notice in a time certain and required that the statement of interest be provided (made available or delivered) to the owner within fifteen days. We now come to the deadline at the heart of this case. The Preamble to D.C. Law 7-154 (effective September 29, 1988) explains that the purpose of the 1988 amendments was to extend the life of the legislation and to require a tenant to provide the owner of a single-family accommodation with a written statement of interest within 30 days of receiving a written offer of sale from the owner. D.C. Law 7-154 § 2(g), 35 D.C.Reg. 5715-16 (1988). The Committee Report confirms that [t]he new bill will require a tenant of a single family accommodation, like tenants of 2-4 unit accommodations, to submit a written statement of interest to purchase the property within 15 days [later changed to 30 days in the case of single-family dwellings] of an offer of sale. D.C. Council, Report on Bill 7-462 at 3 (June 27, 1988). This change had been suggested to benefit landlordsto ease the hardships faced by property owners, without weakening any of the existing tenant protections. Id. at 4 (summarizing testimony on behalf of Apartment and Office Building Association which characterized the restrictions of TOPA as a gross infringement on property rights, but suggested, if legislation was extended, changing several procedural provisions, including adding a time limit for providing a statement of interest); id. (reporting that Association of Realtors opposed renewal of legislation but, in the alternative, asked Council to require tenants in a single-family accommodation who want to exercise their right to purchase to give written notice within 15 days of receipt of the owners' notice to sell). The history of this provision demonstrates that it was added to benefit landlords by establishing a time certain for the tenant to respond. This legislative history supports the conclusion derived from the structure of the statute and the ordinary sense of the words used in it: shall have 30 days to provide means that the tenant's written statement of interest must be made available to the owner within 30 days.
Soon after a division of this court issued its decision on February 5, 2009, the Council of the District of Columbia amended the statute through a series of emergency, temporary, and permanent acts. The permanent legislation became effective on July 23, 2010, after the required period of congressional review. 57 D.C.Reg. 7532 (2010) (notice of effective date). This legislation amended § 42-3404.09(1) and § 42-3404.10(1) by inserting the following words and punctuation: by hand or by sending by certified mail, after the phrase provide the owner and the Mayor. See § 2(a) and § 2(b) of Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Preservation Clarification Amendment Act of 2010, D.C. Act 18-404, 57 D.C.Reg. 4510 (2010). Thus, after amendment, § 42-3404.09(1) provides in pertinent part that the tenant shall have 30 days to provide the owner and the Mayor, by hand or by sending by certified mail, with a written statement of interest. The Council asserted that this court's decision made it necessary to clarify the Council's intent that tenants have the full 30 days provided by law to express an interest in purchasing their unit following an offer of sale from the landlord. See § 2(e), (g) of the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Preservation Clarification Emergency Declaration Resolution of 2009 (emphasis added). [10] 56 D.C.Reg. 2120 (2009). Thus, the announced purpose of the amendment was to clarify that a tenant can preserve his opportunity to purchase by hand delivery or sending by certified mail [the] letter of interest and that actual receipt ... by the housing provider or the Mayor within the relevant time frame is not required. D.C. Act 18-327, Preamble, 57 D.C.Reg. 2544 (2010). The Council may have clarified TOPA for the future, but it did not purport to enact legislation that would govern this case. Given the absence of clearly expressed intent to the contrary, we presume that the amendment does not apply retroactively. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 265, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994) (If the statute would operate retroactively, our traditional presumption teaches that it does not govern absent clear congressional intent favoring such a result.). In fact, at oral argument, the tenant's counsel assured us that the amendment operates prospectively only. Nor did the Council's action in 2009 provide meaningful assistance in discerning the intent of the predecessor Councils which enacted TOPA and later added the thirty-day deadline. In the first place, the Council did not assert that it was clarifying what the earlier legislators meant. [11] Secondly, there is serious debate and doubt as to when, if ever, a later legislature has a role in construing what an earlier legislature intended. United States Parole Comm'n v. Noble, 693 A.2d 1084, 1103 (D.C.1997), majority opinion adopted on rehearing en banc, 711 A.2d 85, 86 (D.C.1998) (en banc). [E]ven if later Councils approve [a certain interpretation of a statute], that is not necessarily valid evidence of the intent of the Council that enacted it. Id. [T]he Supreme Court often has said `the views of a subsequent Congress form a hazardous basis for inferring the intent of an earlier one.' Winters v. Ridley, 596 A.2d 569, 579 (D.C.1991) (Ferren, J., concurring) (quoting United States v. Price, 361 U.S. 304, 313, 80 S.Ct. 326, 4 L.Ed.2d 334 (1960)). See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 530 n. 27, 127 S.Ct. 1438, 167 L.Ed.2d 248 (2007) (quoting Price ). The hazard certainly is greatest in circumstances like these, where more than two decades have passed, and the Council that acted in 2009 did not contain any members who passed the legislation in 1980, 1983, and 1988. Cf. Winters, 596 A.2d at 578 (Schwelb, J., concurring) (Relatively little time elapsed between the enactment of the GTCA [in 1986] and the Council's actions in 1989. Most of the legislators were members of the Council at both relevant times.); United States ex rel. Long v. SCS Business & Technical Institute, Inc., 335 U.S.App.D.C. 331, 339-40, 173 F.3d 870, 878-79 (1999) (Post-enactment legislative history ... becomes of absolutely no significance when the subsequent Congress... takes on the role of a court and in its reports asserts the meaning of a prior statute.). This decision implies no disrespect for the Council, nor does it step beyond our proper role as judges. Ultimately, the interpretation of statutes is the responsibility of courts, not of subsequently elected legislative bodies. Winters, 596 A.2d at 577 (Schwelb, J., concurring) (citing Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 566, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 101 L.Ed.2d 490 (1988)). In sum, nothing about the recent amendments changes our understanding of what the statute meant in 2001.
Practical considerations confirm our reading of the statute. Permitting the tenant to invoke his right to purchase by placing a statement of interest in the mail on the thirtieth day would create uncertainty and impose a significant additional burden on the owner, who would have to decide, without guidance from the statute, how long to wait before concluding that the tenant had not responded. In this case, for example, it apparently took two full weeks for the mail to arrive. Requiring the owner to choose between further, potentially costly, delay in the sale or redevelopment of his property and possibly violating TOPA would serve none of the Act's salutary purposes, see D.C.Code § 42-3401.02 (2001 & 2010 Supp.) (stating purposes of the legislation), and we have seen no evidence that the legislature intended this result. To the contrary, this language was adopted for the benefit of owners and to shorten the time in which they must remain uncertain whether the tenant will claim the right to purchase the property. On the other hand, enforcing the thirty-day deadline by requiring that the statement of interest be made available to the owner within that time will provide certainty and predictability that benefit landlords and tenants alike. Moreover, it is a common feature of TOPA that the end of one period triggers the beginning of another, and it often will be important for tenants to know with certainty that a new period has begun. [12] In addition, as explained above, this understanding of the verb provide will establish the tenants' right to receive certain information within seven days after the owner has received a request for it. See D.C.Code § 42-3404.03(4); D.C.Code § 42-3404.09(2). [13] Having considered the language of the statute, its structure, and its legislative history, we hold that the tenant must provide the [owner] ... with a statement of interest by ensuring that it is made available to him within thirty days. [14]