Court Opinion

ID: 9713639
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:19:11.640895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:19.707236
License: Public Domain

HOOD, Associate. Judge
(dissenting).
I joined in the original opinion in this case, 'but on further study I 'have concluded that such opinion was erroneous. I am now convinced that the Landlord and Tenant Branch of the Municipal Court had no-jurisdiction to render a judgment for possession of the apartment.
The statute, Code 1940, § 11-735, provides summary remedy for possession of real-estate in a definitely limited class of cases. Aside from cases arising after sale under deed of trust or foreclosure of mortgage and cases of forcible entry and detainer (and obviously the present case falls in neither of those classes), the trial court may entertain suits ifor possession of real estate only in those cases where the conventional relation of landlord and tenant exists.
■Whatever may be the exact relation between a corporation holding title to a cooperative apartment house and one to- whom it has' sold one of the apartment units, the relationship is far mo-re than the conventional relationship of landlord and tenant. One who holds stock or other certificate entitling him to use of a cooperative apartment is generally said to have “purchased” the apartment, Wardman Const. Co. v. Flynn, 60 App.D.C. 357, 54 F.2d 831, and in effect is regarded as the owner of it. 542 Morris Park Ave. Corporation v. Wilkins, 120 Misc. 48, 197 N.Y.S. 625. It has been saiid that although the corporation holds legal title the entire equitable estate is distributed proportionately among the owners of the apartments and that ownership of an apartment constitutes an interest in -real property. In re Pitts’ Estate, 218 Cal. 184, 22 P.2d 694. This court has said that the purchaser of a. .cooperative apartment “is more than -a mere tenant or lessee” and “has most of the attributes of an owner.” Hicks v. Bigelow, D.C Mun.App., 55 A.2d 924.
*62The parties recognized this in their dealings. Appellee contracted to purchase a “Certificate oí Ownership” which would “entitle him to the perpetual use and occupancy” of the . apartment. Appellant agreed “to cause to be conveyed to the purchaser a right of perpetual use as evidenced by a Proprietary Lease.” The contract, the certificate of ownership and the proprietary lease are not severable. They must be considered together. ' Appellant would have the court disregard everything but the lease and consider the case as nothing more than an ordinary landlord and tenant proceeding. The complaint alleges appellee has defaulted in payment of rent, but in fact appellee agreed to pay no rent. The transaction is not one of leasing property in exchange for payment of rent but in essence is a purchase or capital investment.
In my opinion the corporation may not bring an action in the landlord and tenant court to oust the owner from possession, treating him as a mere tenant and ignoring his rights under his contract of purchase and certificate of ownership. His right to possession was what he purchased and if such right is to be terminated then all the rights and obligations between the parties ought to be adjusted. This proceeding would leave the rights and obligations under the contract of purchase unsettled and unadjusted.
Appellant insists that cooperative apartments are not subject to the Emergency Rent Act, D.C.Code 1940, § 45-1601 et seq., and I am inclined to agree because I do not think the property is rental property. It seems to me that appellant wishes to have all the advantages of a landlord and none of the disadvantages. It may be that if appellant cannot resort to the landlord and tenant court in order to obtain possession of an apartment of a defaulting pur-' chaser, appellant will be at some disadvantage; but having adopted the advantages of the cooperative plan, appellant must also assume any burdens that go with that plan.
In short, I think that before the corporation can take back that which it sold, all rights and obligations between the parties under the contract of purchase and the proprietary lease must be settled and that this cannot be done in a summary landlord and tenant proceeding.